Critics attack DSM-5 for overmedicalising normal human behaviour

By Geoff Watts
British Journal of Medicine
Originally published on February 10, 2012

Although not due to be published until May 2013, the fifth edition of the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) is already provoking dissent among psychiatrists and psychologists in Britain.

Critics claim it will make an already problematic diagnostic system worse and result in more people being labelled mentally ill.

<snip>

"The new categories are based on lists of symptoms that don't necessarily map well on to the underlying biological and psychological processes involved in emotion, behaviour, and cognition," said Nick Craddock, professor of psychiatry at Cardiff University.

Speaking at a critical briefing on the current plans for the DSM-5 he claimed that more aspects of emotion, behaviour, and cognition are going to be labelled as diagnoses.

This will medicalise more of what most people view as normal human behaviour.

He offered the example of someone having an episode of severe low mood that met the accepted diagnostic criteria of depression.

"Currently, if this follows bereavement, it would be excluded. It would be regarded as normal. But in DSM-5 the plan is to remove the bereavement exclusion. What most would view as a normal reaction to the death of a loved one would be labelled as a depressive illness," said Professor Craddock.

Peter Kinderman, professor of clinical psychology at the University of Liverpool and also speaking at the briefing said, "DSM-5 is making the process of describing and explaining situations worse."

 He gave as an example the diagnosis of gambling disorder.

"For individuals and for society gambling is a problem.  I think it's unhelpful to regard it as an illness," he said.

"The proposed revision will include a vast number of social, psychological, and behaviour problems in the category of mental disorder, so pathologising mild eccentricity, loneliness, shyness, sadness, and much else.  One worries about what this will mean for the person who receives the label."

To be categorised as mentally ill has all sorts of consequences, he added.

Professor Kinderman suggested that "the American Psychiatric Association call a halt and convene a representative international expert panel to discuss the proposals."

--------------------------
The article can be found here.
Thanks to Ken Pope for this information.

Not Diseases, but Categories of Suffering

By GARY GREENBERG

The New York Times - Opinion

Published: January 29, 2012

YOU’VE got to feel sorry for the American Psychiatric Association, at least for a moment. Its members proposed a change to the definition of autism in the fifth edition of their Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, one that would eliminate the separate category of Asperger syndrome in 2013. And the next thing they knew, a prominent psychiatrist was quoted in a front-page article in this paper saying the result would be fewer diagnoses, which would mean fewer troubled children eligible for services like special education and disability payments.

Then, just a few days later, another front-pager featured a pair of equally prominent experts explaining their smackdown of the A.P.A.’s proposal to eliminate the “bereavement exclusion” — the two months granted the grieving before their mourning can be classified as “major” depression. This time, the problem was that the move would raise the numbers of people with the diagnosis, increasing health care costs and the use of already pervasive mind-altering drugs, as well as pathologizing a normal life experience.

Fewer patients, more patients: the A.P.A. just can’t win. Someone is always mad at it for its diagnostic manual.

It’s not the current A.P.A.’s fault. The fault lies with its predecessors. The D.S.M. is the offspring of odd bedfellows: the medical industry, with its focus on germs and other biochemical causes of disease, and psychoanalysis, the now-largely-discredited discipline that attributes our psychological suffering to our individual and collective history.

The entire story is here.

Dr. Robert Gordon's Comment on DSM

Recently, Dr. Robert Gordon posted a comment on the Pennsylvania Psychological Association's listserv about the upcoming DSM-5 revision.

I have been writing to the DSM 5 committee my suggestions and concerns. However, I do not like the DSM. I use a combination of the ICD and PDM. The DSM is American psychiatry's political motive to put mental health care under their umbrella.

As I commonly state in court, "The DSM is a product of a particular guild and it has no legal or scientific authority. My diagnostic opinion is based on the best available research."

 Yet, in over 100 years, the American Psychological Association has not been able to do better. We argue a lot among ourselves, but we have failed to produce a diagnostic system that is better than the DSM.

The international psychodynamic community produced the excellent Psychodynamic Diagnostic Manual (PDM 2006).

WHY A NEW DIAGNOSTIC MANUAL?

Robert Gordon, PhD ABPP

The Psychodynamic Diagnostic Manual (PDM Task Force, 2006) is the first psychological diagnostic classification system that considers the whole person in various stages of development. A task force of five major psychoanalytic organizations and leading researchers, under the guidance of Stanley I. Greenspan, Nancy McWilliams, and Robert Wallerstein came together to develop the PDM. The resulting nosology goes from the deep structural foundation of personality to the surface symptoms that include the integration of behavioral, emotional, cognitive, and social functioning.

The PDM improves on the existing diagnostic systems by considering the full range of mental functioning. In addition to culling years of psychoanalytic studies of etiology and pathogenesis, the PDM relies on research in neuroscience, treatment outcome, infant and child development, and personality assessment.

The PDM does not look at symptom patterns described in isolation, as do the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association (DSM). Research on brain development and the maturation of mental processes suggests that patterns of behavioral, emotional, cognitive, and social functioning involve many areas working together rather than in isolation. Although it is based on psychodynamic theory and supporting research, the PDM is not doctrinaire in its presentation. It may be used in conjunction with the ICD or DSM. The PDM Task Force made an effort to use language that is accessible to all the schools of psychology. It was developed to be particularly useful in case formulation that could improve the effectiveness of any psychological intervention.

The PDM has received very favorable reviews from mostly the psychoanalytic community (Clemens, 2007; Ekstrom, 2007; Migone, 2006; and Silvio, 2007).  However, even non-psychodynamic psychologists that were introduced to the PDM as part of MMPI-2 and ethics/risk management workshops had a positive reaction to the new diagnostic system.  Ninety percent of 192 psychologists surveyed (65 Psychodynamic, 76 CBT and 51 Family Systems, Humanistic/Existential, Eclectic with no primary preference) rated the PDM as favorable to very favorable (Gordon, 2008).

The entire article is here.

    

Statement of the American Psychological Association on the DSM-5 Development Process

There are a variety of posts on this blog highlighting concerns about DSM-5.  APA published this press release on December 2, 2011.

Press Release

WASHINGTON—Diagnostic classification systems of disorders and diseases are an integral part of health care delivery. Any such system, including the upcoming 5th edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) of the American Psychiatric Association and the pending revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) of the World Health Organization, must be based on the best available science and serve the public interest. 

The American Psychological Association has members with significant expertise in the scientific areas relevant to the DSM, and we have urged them to take part in the DSM revision efforts. We are encouraged that many psychologists are making meaningful contributions to the process as individuals, as members of the DSM-5 Task Force and work groups, and through the divisions of the American Psychological Association. This involvement includes offering comments on draft provisions and participating in field trials. 

We applaud the Society for Humanistic Psychology (Division 32 of our association) for its leadership role in generating dialogue and information-sharing within the broader mental health community concerning the revisions process. The Society also has prepared, disseminated, and garnered wide support for an "open letter" to the DSM-5 Task Force and the American Psychiatric Association, which expresses specific concerns related to the DSM-5 development process. 

We share their belief that the purpose of any diagnostic classification system should be to improve treatment outcomes. Thus it is essential to consider the impact of any new diagnostic system or category on vulnerable individuals, groups and populations, particularly children, older adults, and ethnic minorities. By appropriately identifying individuals in need of treatment, it is possible to both safeguard the welfare of individuals and to direct treatment resources where they are most needed. Concerns also have been raised that over-identification or misidentification of individuals as being in need of treatment could lead to the use of unnecessary and potentially harmful interventions.

The American Psychological Association recognizes that there is a diversity of opinion concerning the ongoing DSM-5 development process. Our association has not adopted an official position on the proposed revision; rather, we have called upon the DSM-5 Task Force to adhere to an open, transparent process based on the best available science and in the best interest of the public. In this regard, we appreciate the Task Force's expressed commitment to seriously consider the issues and concerns raised by experts in the mental health field in their deliberations.

We call upon our members (either as individuals or groups) to continue to add their perspectives to enhance the validity and clinical utility of the DSM-5. The American Psychological Association will continue to monitor the revision process and be a strong voice for its transparency. 

The American Psychological Association, in Washington, D.C., is the largest scientific and professional organization representing psychology in the United States and is the world's largest association of psychologists. APA's membership includes more than 154,000 researchers, educators, clinicians, consultants and students. Through its divisions in 54 subfields of psychology and affiliations with 60 state, territorial and Canadian provincial associations, APA works to advance psychology as a science, as a profession and as a means of promoting health, education and human welfare.

British Psychological Society Critiques DSM-5



The British Psychological Society


The British Psychological Society responds to the new DSM-5.   A prior blog post looked at some criticism of the DSM-5.  The British Psychological Association offers a more formal, 26-page critique.  The entire document can be found here.  The first part of the critique is posted for your review.

=======================

The Society is concerned that clients and the general public are negatively affected by the continued and continuous medicalisation of their natural and normal responses to their experiences; responses which undoubtedly have distressing consequences which demand helping responses, but which do not reflect illnesses so much as normal individual variation.

We therefore do welcome the proposal to include a profile of rating the severity of different symptoms over the preceding month. This is attractive, not only because it focuses on specific problems (see below), but because it introduces the concept of variability more fully into the system. That said, we have more concerns than plaudits.

The putative diagnoses presented in DSM-V are clearly based largely on social norms, with 'symptoms' that all rely on subjective judgments, with little confirmatory physical 'signs' or evidence of biological causation. The criteria are not value-free, but rather reflect current normative social expectations. Many researchers have pointed out that psychiatric diagnoses are plagued by problems of reliability, validity, prognostic value, and co-morbidity.

Diagnostic categories do not predict response to medication or other interventions whereas more specific formulations or symptom clusters might (Moncrieff, 2007).

Finally, disorders categorised as ‘not otherwise specified’ are huge (running at 30% of all personality disorder diagnoses for example).

Personality disorder and psychoses are particularly troublesome as they are not adequately normed on the general population, where community surveys regularly report much higher prevalence and incidence than would be expected. This problem – as well as threatening the validity of the approach – has significant implications. If community samples show high levels of ‘prevalence’, social factors are minimised, and the continuum with normality is ignored. Then many of the people who describe normal forms of distress like feeling bereaved after three months, or traumatised by military conflict for more than a month, will meet diagnostic criteria.

In this context, we have significant concerns over consideration of inclusion of both “at-risk mental state” (prodrome) and “attenuated psychosis syndrome”. We recognise that the first proposal has now been dropped – and we welcome this. But the concept of “attenuated psychosis system” appears very worrying; it could be seen as an opportunity to stigmatize eccentric people, and to lower the threshold for achieving a diagnosis of psychosis

Diagnostic systems such as these therefore fall short of the criteria for legitimate medical diagnoses. They certainly identify troubling or troubled people, but do not meet the criteria for categorisation demanded for a field of science or medicine (with a very few exceptions such as dementia.) We are also concerned that systems such as this are based on identifying problems as located within individuals.  This misses the relational context of problems and the undeniable social causation of many such problems. For psychologists, our wellbeing and mental health stem from our frameworks of understanding of the world, frameworks which are themselves the product of the experiences and learning through our lives.

DSM-5 Article: The Social Construction of Diagnoses?

by John Gavazzi, PsyD, ABPP
Ethics Chair

While some may want to think that psychiatric diagnoses are objective categories that truly reflect an individual's mental, emotional, and physiological condition, there are others who view diagnoses as value-laden, socially constructed concepts that may not be the most useful tools in understanding and treating the patients with whom we work.

There is an interesting article from the Seattle Times sheds light on the social construction of DSM-V diagnoses: Key Diagnostic Deadline Draws Near for Psychiatrists and "New" DSM conditions.  Here are some highlights:

But molecular tests and brain scans based on those discoveries aren't yet ready for diagnostic use, and that leaves the authors of the upcoming book with the same problem that vexed their predecessors: how to distinguish a mental illness from the rainbow of normal human behavior.

Much of the discussion at the American Psychiatric Association meeting centered on fears that, without solid scientific evidence, additions or deletions in their new bible of mental health could do more harm than good.

"The brain is so darn complicated," said Dr. David Axelson, director of the Child and Adolescent Bipolar Services program at the Western Psychiatric Institute in Pittsburgh.

As with each edition, the controversies dogging DSM-5 center on the proposed "new" conditions. Among the questions:
Is there a distinct mood disorder that occurs in some women before their periods?
Is hoarding a brain-based illness?
Can the sorrow accompanying bereavement swell into a certifiable mental disorder?

Even when concepts are not at issue, nomenclature sometimes is. Suggestions include replacing the word "anxiety" with "worry," and scrapping the terms "addiction," "dependence" and "substance abuse" in favor of "substance-use disorder."

"We have to be very careful about our choice of language and precise criteria," said Dr. David J. Kupfer, the DSM-5 task force chairman and director of research at Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic. Slight word changes could translate into making a disorder much more prevalent — or much more rare, he said.

and

In another room, doctors debated whether a patient must have impaired function — such as problems in personal relationships — to qualify as having a mental disorder. "If your life is humming along just fine despite gambling 30 hours a week, do you really have a gambling addiction?" one psychiatrist asked with a note of exasperation in his voice.

Yes, a colleague responded: "The person just doesn't know he has a problem yet."

The reader can draw his or her own conclusions from the article.  For me, it is difficult to see how DSM-V can be taken too seriously as an empirically-based reference book.