Two commentaries from Allen Frances in response to APA field trial documents

January 19, 2012 by

Two commentaries from Allen Frances in response to APA field trial documents

Shortlink Post #130: http://wp.me/pKrrB-1GX

Allen Frances, MD, chaired the DSM-IV Task Force and a former chair of the Department of Psychiatry at Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC. He is currently professor emeritus at Duke.

 

References and resources

DSM-5 document: Q & A on DSM-5 Prevalence and Reliability January 12, 2012

DSM-5 document: Reliability and Prevalence in the DSM-5 Field Trials January 12, 2012

based on the The American Journal of Psychiatry article DSM-5: How Reliable Is Reliable Enough? Helena Chmura Kraemer, Ph.D.; David J. Kupfer, M.D.; Diana E. Clarke, Ph.D.; William E. Narrow, M.D., M.P.H.; Darrel A. Regier, M.D., M.P.H. January 01, 2012, Vol. 169. No. 1

DSM-5 Field Trials page

Consumer-Friendly Frequently Asked Questions about DSM-5 Field Trials
Frequently Asked Questions about DSM-5 Field Trials in Large, Academic Settings
DSM-5 Field Trial Protocol for Large, Academic Settings
DSM-5 Field Trial Protocol for Routine Clinical Practice Settings
APA’s Request for Proposals for Potential Field Trial Sites
DSM-5 Field Trials in Routine Clinical Practice Settings
Supplemental Material for Clinician Application to Own Institutional Review Board (IRB)

Inside DSM-5 Field Trials, Flyer, American Psychiatric Association Practice Research Network, December 2011

Commentary: DSM-5 Disorganization, Disarray, and Delays, Dr Dayle Jones, PhD, January 3, 2012

 

Two commentaries from Allen Frances, MD

Two Fallacies Invalidate the DSM-5 Field Trials
APA telegraphs that DSM 5 will be unreliable.

Allen Frances, MD | January 16, 2012

The designer of the DSM-5 Field Trials has just written a telling commentary in the American Journal of Psychiatry. She makes two very basic errors that reveal the fundamental worthlessness of these field trials and their inability to provide any information that will be useful for DSM-5 decision making.

1) The commentary states: “A realistic goal is a kappa between 0.4 and 0.6, while a kappa between 0.2 and 0.4 would be acceptable.” This is simply incorrect and flies in the face of all traditional standards of what is considered ‘acceptable’ diagnostic agreement among clinicians. Clearly, the commentary is attempting to greatly lower our expectations about the levels of reliability that were achieved in the field trials – to soften us up to the likely bad news that the DSM-5 proposals are unreliable. Unable to clear the historic bar of reasonable reliability, it appears that DSM-5 is choosing to drastically lower that bar – what was previously seen as clearly unacceptable is now being accepted.

Kappa is a statistic that measures agreement among raters, corrected for chance agreement. Historically, kappas above 0.8 are considered good, above 0.6 fair, and under 0.6 poor. Before this AJP commentary, no one has ever felt comfortable endorsing kappas so low as 0.2-0.4. As a comparison, the personality section in DSM III was widely derided when its kappas were around 0.5. A kappa between 0.2-0.4 comes dangerously close to no agreement. ‘Accepting’ such low levels is a blatant fudge factor – lowering standards in this drastic way cheapens the currency of diagnosis and defeats the whole purpose of providing diagnostic criteria.

Why does this matter? Good reliability does not guarantee validity or utility – human beings often agree very well on things that are dead wrong. But poor reliability is a certain sign of very deep trouble. If mental health clinicians cannot agree on a diagnosis, it is essentially worthless. The low reliability of DSM-5 presaged in the AJP commentary confirms fears that its criteria sets are so ambiguously written and difficult to interpret that they will be a serious obstacle to clinical practice and research. We will be returning to the wild west of idiosyncratic diagnostic practice that was the bane of psychiatry before DSM III.

2) The commentary also states: “one contentious issue is whether it is important that the prevalence for diagnoses based on proposed criteria for DSM-5 match the prevalence for the corresponding DSM-IV diagnoses” …. “to require that the prevalence remain unchanged is to require that any existing difference between true and DSM-IV prevalence be reproduced in DSM-5. Any effort to improve the sensitivity of DSM-IV criteria will result in higher prevalence rates, and any effort to improve the specificity of DSM-IV criteria will result in lower prevalence rates. Thus, there are no specific expectations about the prevalence of disorders in DSM-5.”

This is also a fudge. For completely unexplained and puzzling reasons, the DSM-5 field trials failed to measure the impact of its proposals on rates of disorder. These quotes in the commentary are an attempt to justify this fatal flaw in design. The contention is that we have no way of knowing what true rates of a given diagnosis should be – so why bother to measure what will be the likely impact on rates of the DSM-5 proposals. If rates double under DSM-5, the assumption will be that it is picking up previous false negatives with no need to worry about the risks of creating an army of new false positives.

This is irresponsible for two reasons. First off, we are already suffering from serious diagnostic inflation. Rates of psychiatric disorder are already sky high (25% in the general population in any year; 50% lifetime) and we recently have experienced three runaway false epidemics of childhood disorders in the past 15 years. Second, drug company marketing has been so abusive as to warrant enormous fines and so successful as to result in widespread misuse of medication for very questionable indications. Recent CDC data suggest that the severely ill remain very undertreated, but that the mildly ill or not ill at all have become massively overtreated, especially by primary care physicians.

The DSM-5 proposals will uniformly increase rates, sometimes dramatically. Not to have measured by how much is unfathomable and irresponsible. The new diagnoses suggested for DSM-5 will (mis)label people at the very populous boundary with normality. Mixed anxiety depression and binge eating disorder will likely have astounding high rates between 5-10% – that’s tens of millions people now considered ‘normal’ suddenly converted into mentally ill by arbitrary DSM-5 fiat. Psychosis risk and disruptive mood disorder will be extremely common in the young; minor neurocognitive among the elderly. Legions of the recently bereaved will be misdiagnosed as clinically depressed; rates of generalized anxiety and addiction will mushroom; and ADD which has already almost tripled will find even more room at the top. The field trial developers seem either unaware or insensitive to the unacceptable risks involved in creating large numbers of false positive, pseudo-patients.

Indeed, quite contrary to the blithe assertions put forward in the commentary, we should have rigorous expectations about prevalence changes triggered by any DSM revision. Rates should not be wildly different for the same disorder UNLESS there is clear evidence of a serious false negative problem and firm protections against creating a massive false positive problem. And new disorders with high prevalences should not be included without substantial scientific evidence and convincing proof of accuracy, reliability, and safety. We have known since they were first posted that none of the DSM-5 proposals comes remotely close to meeting a minimal standard for accuracy and safety. And now, the AJP commentary seems to be softening us up for the bad news that their reliability is also lousy.

The workers on DSM-5 ignore the often dire implications of drastically raising the prevalence of an existing disorder or adding an untested new disorder with high prevalence – i.e., the misguided and potentially harmful treatment, the unnecessary stigma, and rising health care costs that also cause a misallocation of very scarce resources. Just two examples. Do we really want even more antipsychotic medications prescribed for children, the elderly, and returning war veterans when these are already being used so loosely and inappropriately? Isn’t the current legal and illegal overuse of stimulant medications already a big enough problem without introducing a drastically lowered set of criteria for diagnosing ADD? Sad to say, DSM-5 has failed to do an adequate risk/benefit analysis on any of its suggestions. Every one of its changes is designed to chase elusive false negatives; none protects the interests of mislabeled false positives.

Given our country’s current binge of loose diagnostic and medication practice (particularly by the primary care physicians who do most of the prescribing), DSM-5 should not be in the business of casually raising rates and offering inviting new targets for aggressive drug marketing. Instead, DSM-5 should be working in the opposite direction – taking steps to increase the precision and specificity of its diagnostic criteria. And the texts describing each disorder should contain a new section warning about the risks of overdiagnosis and ways of avoiding it. It is impossible to say what is the “right” prevalence of any disorder, but it is careless and reckless to so dramatically increase the prevalences of mental disorders without evidence of need or proof of safety.

The DSM-5 field trials have cost APA at least $3 million (perhaps a whole lot more). They started off on the wrong foot by asking the wrong question – focusing only on reliability and completely ignoring prevalence. The deadlines for starting the trials and for delivering results have been repeatedly postponed because of poor planning, an excessively cumbersome design, and disorganized implementation. The results will be arriving at the very last minute when decisions should have already be made. And now we get a broad hint that the reliabilities, when they are finally reported, will be disastrously low.

What should be done now as DSM-5 enters its depressing endgame? There really is no rational choice except to drop the many unsupportable DSM-5 proposals and to dramatically improve the imprecise writing that plagues most of the DSM-5 criteria sets.

DSM-5: How Reliable Is Reliable Enough?
DSM 5 is willing to except poor quality.

Allen Frances, MD | January 18, 2012

This is the title of a disturbing commentary written by the leaders of the DSM 5 Task Force and published in this month’s American Journal of Psychiatry. The contents suggest that we must lower our expectations and be satisfied with levels of unreliability in DSM 5 that historically have been clearly unacceptable. Two approaches are possible when the DSM 5 field trials reveal low reliability for a given suggestion: 1) admit that the suggestion was a bad idea or that it is written so ambiguously as to be unusable in clinical practice, research, and forensics; Or, 2) declare by arbitrary fiat that the low reliability is indeed now to be relabeled ‘acceptable’.

In the past, ‘acceptable’ meant kappas of 0.6 or above. When the personality disorders in DSM III came in at 0.54, they were roundly derided and given only a reluctant bye. For DSM 5, ‘acceptable’ reliability has been reduced to a startling 0.2-0.4. This barely exceeds the level of agreement you might expect to get by pure chance.

Previously in its development, DSM 5 has placed great store in its field trials. This quote is from the Chair of the DSM 5 Task Force: “There’s a myth that all the decisions have been made, when in fact, all the decisions haven’t been made. Just because things have been proposed doesn’t necessarily mean they’ll end up in the DSM-5. If they don’t achieve a level of reliability, clinician acceptability, and utility, it’s unlikely they’ll go forward.”

And this quote is from a 2010 interview given to a science writer by the head of the DSM 5 Oversight Committee: “It’s going to be based on the work of the field trials – based on the assessment and analysis of them. I don’t think anyone is going to say we’ve got to go forward if we get crappy results.”

The DSM 5 tune has now changed dramatically. The commentary written for AJP by the leadership of DSM 5 Task Force appears to be suggesting that they will, in fact, “go forward,” and with sub par reliabilities of 0.2-0.4. Now consider that the original field trial plan was to have a second phase to permit fixing those diagnostic criteria that were found to have unacceptable reliability in the first phase. These would go back to the workgroups who could then rewrite the offending criteria and retest the new version in the second phase of the field trial. But poor planning and administrative foul-ups kept pushing back the field trials so that they are now at least 18 months late in completion. As time was running out, DSM 5 leadership quietly dropped the second phase of the field trials, removing any reference to it from the timeline posted on the DSM-5 website. Their Plan B substitute for adequate field testing appears in AJP- To wit: a drastic lowering of the bar for what is ‘acceptable’ reliability.

Can ‘accepting’ unacceptably poor agreement uphold the integrity of psychiatric diagnosis? Poor reliability degrades our ability to communicate with one another clinically, and prohibits meaningful research. ‘Accepting’ as reliable kappas of 0.2-0.4 is to go backwards more than thirty years to the days of DSM II. Before DSM III, Bob Spitzer and Mel Sabshin saw the need to develop a criterion based system that could achieve reasonable diagnostic agreement. This is the very minimum condition necessary for current clinical work and future progress in psychiatry.

Filed under Allen Frances, American Psychiatric Association (APA), Criticism of DSM-V, DSM-5, DSM revision process, DSM-5, DSM-5 draft proposals, DSM-5 field trials, DSM-5 in the media, DSM-V Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

CFSAC November 8-9, 2011 meeting: Minutes and Recommendations to HHS posted

January 14, 2012 by

CFSAC November 8-9, 2011 meeting: Minutes and Recommendations to HHS posted

Shortlink Post #129: http://wp.me/pKrrB-1Fn

The fall meeting of the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Advisory Committee (CFSAC) took place on November 8-9, 2011.

Minutes and Committee’s Recommendations to HHS have now been posted on the CFSAC website.

Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Advisory Committee (CFSAC) 

The Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Advisory Committee (CFSAC) provides advice and recommendations to the Secretary of Health and Human Services via the Assistant Secretary for Health of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services on issues related to chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). These include:

• factors affecting access and care for persons with CFS;
• the science and definition of CFS; and
• broader public health, clinical, research and educational issues related to CFS.

Administrative and management support for CFSAC activities is provided by the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health (OASH). However, staffing will continue to be provided primarily from the Office on Women’s Health, which is part of OASH.

Dr. Nancy C. Lee, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Health – Women’s Health, is the Designated Federal Officer for CFSAC.

The Meetings page is here

               Minutes Day One CFSAC Fall 2011 meeting

               Minutes Day Two CFSAC Fall 2011 meeting

Presentations, Public Testimony and links for Videos for Day One and Day Two

 

The Agenda item with the most relevance for this site was the issue of the current proposals for chapter placement and coding for Chronic fatigue syndrome in the forthcoming US specific ICD-10-CM, the proposals presented for consideration at the September meeting of the ICD-9-CM Coordination and Maintenance Committee on behalf of the Coalition for ME/CFS, and an alternative proposal presented by NCHS.

See this Dx Revision Watch post (Post #118, December 27, 2011) for a report on the Fall 2012 Meeting presentation by Donna Pickett (NCHS) and discussions of proposals for ICD-10-CM:

CFSAC November 2011 meeting: videos, presentations and Day One Agenda item:

International Classification of Diseases – Clinical Modification (ICD-CM): Presentation by Donna Pickett, RHIA, MPH, National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS)

 

Recommendations out of the Fall 2011 CFSAC Meeting

CFSAC Recommendations – November 8-9, 2011

The specific recommendations articulated by the Committee are:

1. This recommendation addresses the process by which CFSAC transmits recommendations to the Secretary and the Secretary communicates back to CFSAC whether or not a recommendation was acted upon. CFSAC recommends that this process be transparent and clearly articulated to include regular feedback on the status of the committee’s  recommendations. This communication could originate directly from the Office of the Secretary or be transmitted via the relevant agency or agencies.

2. CFSAC recommends to the Secretary that the NIH or other appropriate agency issue a Request for Applications (RFA) for clinical trials research on chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME).

3. CFSAC would like to encourage and support the creation of the DHHS Interagency Working Group on Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and ask this group to work together to pool resources that would put into place the “Centers of Excellence” concept that has been recommended repeatedly by this advisory committee. Specifically, CFSAC encourages utilizing HHS agency programs and demonstration projects, available through the various agencies, to develop and coordinate an effort supporting innovative platforms that facilitate evaluation and treatment, research, and public and provider education. These could take the form of appropriately staffed physical locations, or be virtual networks comprising groups of qualified individuals who interact through a variety of electronic media. Outreach and availability to underserved populations, including people who do not have access to expert care, should be a priority in this effort.

4. This multi‐part recommendation pertains to classification of CFS in ICD classification systems:

a) CFSAC considers CFS to be a multi‐system disease and rejects any proposal to classify CFS as a psychiatric condition in the U.S. disease classification systems.

b) CFSAC rejects the current classification of CFS in Chapter 18 of ICD‐9‐CM under R53.82, chronic fatigue unspecified, chronic fatigue syndrome, not otherwise specified.

c) CFSAC continues to recommend that CFS should be classified in ICD‐10‐CM in Chapter 6 under Diseases of the Nervous System at G93.3 in line with ICD‐10, the World Health Organization, and ICD‐10‐CA, the Canadian Clinical Modification and in accordance with CFSAC’s recommendations of August 2005 and May 2011. CFSAC rejects CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics Option 2 and recommends that CFS remain in the same code and the same subcode as myalgic encephalomyelitis because CFS includes both viral and non‐viral triggers.

d) CFSAC recommends that an “excludes one” [sic *] be added to G93.3 for chronic fatigue, R53.82, and neurasthenia, F48.8. CFSAC recommends that these changes be made in ICD‐10‐CM prior to its rollout in 2013.

This final recommendation was also provided to the National Center for Statistics at the CDC prior to the November 18, 2011 deadline for comments along with the following rationale:

We feel that the interests of patients, the scientific and medical communities, continuity and logic are best served by keeping CFS, (B)ME (Benign Myalgic Encephalomyelitis) and PVFS (Post Viral Fatigue Syndrome) in the same broad grouping category. Current scientific evidence would indicate there are more similarities between the three entities than there are differences. Whether they are synonyms for the same underlying concept, disease entities and sub‐entities, or merely the best coding guess is unclear. In reality, any or all of the above may be correct. While the  relationship between CFS, B(ME) and PVFS is not stated, that they are grouped together in ICD 10 (WHO) would indicate some rationale for a connection. Our understanding is that this association will be maintained in the ICD 11, which may also include further description of the relationship. Exclusions specific to chronic fatigue (a symptom present in many illnesses) and neurasthenia (not a current diagnosis) also seem to be under consideration for ICD 11.

*Ed: Should be “Excludes1”. For definitions for “Excludes1” and “Excludes2” see Post #118

               November 2011 Recommendations Letter to the Secretary (PDF 31 KB)

               November 2011 CFSAC Recommendations Chart (PDF 138 KB)

The Minute for Ms Pickett’s presentation “International Classification of Diseases—Clinical Modification (ICD‐CM) Donna Pickett, National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)” and Committee discussions in response to that presentation can be found on Pages 4-10 of the PDF for Minutes Day One (November 8, 2011).

Video of presentation in Post #118. Ms Pickett’s presentation slides here in PDF format.

The Minute for the proposal and unanimous approval of a revised and expanded Recommendation to HHS on the coding of CFS in ICD-10-CM can be found on Pages 43-44 of the PDF for Minutes Day Two (November 9, 2011). Video in Post #118.

As reported in Post #118, following the September 14 meeting of the ICD-9-CM Coordination and Maintenance Committee, NCHS had invited comments from stakeholders on the proposals in Option 1 (presented by the Coalition for ME/CFS) and Option 2 (alternative proposals by NCHS).

The closing date for comments was November 18, 2011.

A decision was expected before the end of December but since any decision that might have been reached on these proposals has yet to be announced, I have raised some queries with Ms Pickett around the decision making process (see Post #118). I will update when a response has been received from Ms Pickett’s office or a public announcement made.

 

Related post

CFSAC November 2011 meeting: videos, presentations and Day One Agenda item: 

International Classification of Diseases – Clinical Modification (ICD-CM): Presentation by Donna Pickett, RHIA, MPH, National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), November 27, 2011

Filed under CFSAC meetings, Clinical Modification, Coalition4ME/CFS, ICD-10, ICD-10-CM, ICD-11, ICD-11 Alpha Draft, ICD-11 revision docs, WHO (World Health Organization) Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

New DSM-5 Development docs: Reliability and Prevalence in the DSM-5 Field Trials

January 13, 2012 by

New DSM-5 Development documents: Reliability and Prevalence in the DSM-5 Field Trials

Post #128 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-1F1

Two new documents have been posted on the American Psychiatric Association’s DSM-5 Development website.

(“What’s New” box on right of Home page)

 

                    Q & A on DSM-5 Prevalence and Reliability January 12, 2012

                    Reliability and Prevalence in the DSM-5 Field Trials January 12, 2012

Based on the The American Journal of Psychiatry article 

                    DSM-5: How Reliable Is Reliable Enough?

The American Journal of Psychiatry | January 01, 2012

Helena Chmura Kraemer, Ph.D.; David J. Kupfer, M.D.; Diana E. Clarke, Ph.D.; William E. Narrow, M.D., M.P.H.; Darrel A. Regier, M.D., M.P.H. January 01, 2012, Vol. 169. No. 1

 

Commentary from Allen Frances, MD, Psychiatric Times, January 09, 2012:

Two Fallacies Invalidate the DSM-5 Field Trials
By Allen Frances, MD | 09 January 2012

(Free registration required to view Psychiatric Times.)

“The designer of the DSM-5 Field Trials has just written a telling commentary in the American Journal of Psychiatry (AJP). She makes what I consider to be 2 basic errors that reveal the fundamental worthlessness of these Field Trials and their inability to provide any information that will be useful for DSM-5 decision making…”

Read on

Filed under Allen Frances, American Psychiatric Association (APA), Criticism of DSM-V, DSM-5, DSM revision process, DSM-5, DSM-5 draft proposals, DSM-5 field trials, DSM-5 in the media, DSM-V Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

DSM 5 Censorship Fails: Support From Professionals and Patients Saves Free Speech: Allen Frances

January 12, 2012 by

DSM 5 Censorship Fails: Support From Professionals and Patients Saves Free Speech by Allen Frances

Post #127 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-1ER

Psychology Today

DSM5 in Distress
The DSM’s impact on mental health practice and research.
by Allen Frances, M.D. (Chair, DSM-IV Task Force and currently professor emeritus at Duke.)

DSM 5 Censorship Fails
Support From Professionals and Patients Saves Free Speech

Allen Frances, M.D. | January 12, 2012

Last week I described the plight of Suzy Chapman, a well respected UK patient advocate forced to change the domain name of her website by the heavy handed tactics of the publishing arm of the American Psychiatric Association. The spurious legal excuse was commercial protection of the ‘DSM 5’ trademark; the probable intent was to stifle one of the internet’s best sources of DSM and ICD information. This bullying could not have come at a worse time – just as final decisions are being made on highly controversial DSM 5 proposals and with the third and final draft due for release this spring. This is precisely when a ragged and reckless DSM 5 can most benefit from the widest and most open discussion.

Though APA’s trademark claims were patently absurd, Ms Chapman did not have the necessary resources for a protracted fight against a well staffed legal department. Visits plummeted drastically to her new web address (reaching a nadir of just one hit per day) and the site faced months of slow recovery. But the good news is that APA’s clumsy attempt at censorship has backfired, free speech will prevail, and the site is now more popular than ever.

Suzy Chapman writes:

“I want to thank the many psychiatrists, allied mental health professionals, and science writers who have spoken out in opposition to what they see as arrogant censorship on the part of the American Psychiatric Association. Their outpouring of concern has generated considerable interest on websites, blogs and social media platforms. This has increased the traffic on my site by many hundreds of visitors per day. The support of professionals and patient groups illustrates the power of the internet to resist suppression of patient advocacy and to promote free speech.”

“The purpose of my site is to raise public and stakeholder awareness of the forthcoming revisions of both DSM-5 and ICD-11. I endeavor to provide timely and accurate information about DSM-5, including: internet commentaries on proposals; flag ups of journal papers and editorials; news releases and other media statements; and updates on changes to the DSM-5 timeline. I also cover progress on ICD-11, including activities of the Revision Steering Group; documents, presentations and videos; and updates on the ICD-11 timeline. I report on developments with the forthcoming US ICD-10-CM and proceedings of a US federal Advisory Committee to HHS in relation to coding issues. Finally, I follow the advocacy campaigns and initiatives relating to DSM and ICD classificatory issues. My objective is to help stakeholders understand the issues so that they may provide the most useful feedback to the revision process.”

“Despite all the controversies, despite the calls for independent review, despite all the delays and limitations of its field trials, DSM-5 hurtles forward towards publication in May 2013. During this final, decisive year of DSM 5 decision making, I shall continue to publish information, updates and commentaries to promote the widest possible dialogue around the drafting of this most important publication. My new site, ‘Dx Revision Watch – Monitoring the development of DSM-5, ICD-11, ICD-10-CM’ can be found at: https://dxrevisionwatch.wordpress.com/

“This experience has taught me that the APA trademark claims were not only misguided, but probably legally indefensible. ‘Nominative fair use’ is permitted those who are publishing criticism within texts if use of the trademark is relevant to the subject of discussion or necessary to identify the product, service, or company. Courts have found that non-misleading use of trademarks in the domain names of critical websites (like walmartsucks.com) is to be considered ‘fair use’ by non-commercial users – so long as there is no intent to misrepresent or confuse visitors to the site and when it is clear that the site owner is not claiming endorsement by, or affiliation to, the holder of the mark.”

“Everything I have read suggests that my clearly non-commercial use of my previous subdomain name (dsm5watch.wordpress.com) – with its prominent disclaimer and no intent to mislead – falls well within the concept of ‘fair use’. This then raises the obvious question – what grounds did APA have for serving me with demands and threats of possible legal action? Several people have independently sent me materials on ‘SLAPP’ lawsuits (strategic lawsuit against public participation). These are threats of legal action intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense – so that they will abandon their criticism or opposition.”

“If you are interested in learning more about ‘SLAPP’ lawsuits, there is a good summary at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation

“The Electronic Frontier Foundation is also a very useful resource for legal advice on trademark law for blog and website owners. See http://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/liability/IP

“The surprisingly spirited and unanimous internet reaction provoked by the APA’s actions will probably discourage it from future pursuit of other ‘fair use’ site owners. I certainly hope so. But if other site owners are issued inappropriate ‘cease and desist’ claims, I do hope they have the resources to seek legal advice before complying.”

“I am very grateful for all the support received in the past week and the many emails thanking me for the work I do. It is gratifying to hear that not only do patients, caregivers and patient organizations rely on my carefully researched and presented content, but that so many professionals are also following my site and find it useful. This experience has been stressful, but I can now say confidently that APA’s actions have definitely backfired –  the many hundreds of additional viewers discovering the site each day will expand its audience and its usefulness.”

All of us owe great thanks to Ms Chapman and to the internet community whose ringing endorsement has allowed her not only to maintain, but also to enlarge, her readership. Ms Chapman will continue to provide the field with the most current and most accurate reporting on DSM 5 during its endgame. I strongly recommend her website as the best clearinghouse for information on DSM 5.

I join Ms Chapman in hoping that this embarrassing episode will discourage APA from all future efforts at abusive censorship – whether they are related to trademark, copyright, or confidentiality agreements. The field must remain vigilant in its efforts to contain APA commercialism and persistent in trying to penetrate APA’s secrecy and inbred decision making. APA must finally come to realize that DSM 5 is an open public trust, not a private business enterprise.

 

Related material:

DSM 5 A Public Trust Or An APA Cash Cow? Commercialism And Censorship Trump Concern For Quality, Allen Frances, M.D., Psychology Today, January 03, 2012

Further media coverage of the APA cease and desist v DSM-5 Watch website issue collated here:  Post #123

Article on “cease and desist” issue: Pity the poor American Psychiatric Association, Parts 1 and 2 by Gary Greenberg

 

Legal information and resources for bloggers and site owners:

1] Wipedia article: Cease and desist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cease_and_desist

2] Wipedia article: Strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation

3] Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Frontier_Foundation
http://www.eff.org/

EFF Bloggers’ Rights
https://www.eff.org/bloggers

EFF Legal Guide for Bloggers
https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal

4] Chilling Effects
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_Effects_(group)

http://chillingeffects.org/

Chilling Effects FAQ on Trademark Law
http://www.chillingeffects.org/trademark/faq.cgi#QID251

Chilling Effects on Protest, Parody and Criticism Sites
http://www.chillingeffects.org/protest/

5] U.S. Trademark Law, Rules of Practice & Federal Statutes , U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, November 2011 http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/law/tmlaw.pdf

Filed under Allen Frances, American Psychiatric Association (APA), Criticism of DSM-V, DSM-5, DSM revision process, DSM-5, DSM-5 draft proposals, DSM-5 in the media, DSM-V, ICD-10-CM, ICD-11 Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

Psychologists call for independent review of DSM-5

January 10, 2012 by

Psychologists call for independent review of DSM-5

Post #126 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-1DC

The Coalition for DSM-5 Reform is calling on the American Psychiatric Association to submit its draft proposals for new categories and criteria for DSM-5 to independent scientific review.

An Open Letter and Petition sponsored by the Society for Humanistic Psychology (Division 32 of the American Psychological Association), in alliance with several other American Psychological Association Divisions, attracted nearly 7000 signatures in its first three weeks. Since launching the petition, on October 22, over 10,300 mental health and allied professionals have signed up with over 40 organizations publicly endorsing the Open Letter.

You can view the Open Letter and iPetition here

Yesterday, January 09, Division 32 Open Letter Committee sent another call to the American Psychiatric Association Board of Trustees and DSM-5 Task Force to submit controversial proposals for DSM-5 to independent scrutiny.

PSYCHOLOGISTS CALL FOR INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF DSM-5

January 9, 2012

ATTENTION:                                                                                                                                                                                    David J. Kupfer, M.D., Chair of DSM-5 Task Force
Darrel A. Regier, M.D., M.P.H., Vice Chair of DSM-5 Task Force
John M. Oldham, M.D., President of the American Psychiatric Association
Dilip V. Jeste, M.D., President-Elect of the American Psychiatric Association
Roger Peele, M.D., Secretary of the American Psychiatric Association

To the DSM-5 Task Force and the American Psychiatric Association:

We appreciate your opening a dialogue regarding the concerns that the Division 32 Open Letter Committee and others have raised about the proposed DSM-5.  Your willingness to do this suggests that both the Task Force and our committee are in basic agreement that we both want the DSM-5 to be empirically grounded, credible to mental health professionals and the public, and safe to use.  In keeping with this spirit of open dialogue, we are writing in regard to what we view as a critically important issue.

You will recall that the Division 32 Open Letter Committee, along with the American Counseling Association, recently asked the DSM-5 Task Force and the American Psychiatric Association to submit the controversial portions of the proposed DSM-5 for external review by an independent group of scholars and scientists who have no ties to the DSM-5 Task Force or the American Psychiatric Association.

As you know, it is common practice for scientists and scholars to submit their work to others for independent review.  We believe it is time for an independent group of scientists and scholars, who have no vested interest in the outcome, to do an external, independent review of the controversial portions of the DSM-5.  We consider this especially important in light of the unprecedented criticism of the proposed  DSM-5 by thousands of mental health professionals, as well as mental health organizations, in the United States and Europe.

Will you submit the controversial proposals in DSM-5 to an independent group of scientists and scholars with no ties to the DSM-5 Task Force or the American Psychiatric Association for an independent, external  review?  

We respectfully ask that you not respond again with assurances about internal reviews and field trials because such assurances, at this point, are not sufficient.  We believe an external, independent review is critical in terms of ensuring the proposed DSM-5 is safe and credible.  If you are unwilling to submit the controversial proposals for external, independent review, we respectfully ask that you provide a detailed rationale for your refusal.  Because the DSM is used by hundreds of thousands of mental health professionals, we are publicly posting this letter and will also post your response.   We believe mental health professionals, along with concerned mental health organizations, in the United States and Europe will be very interested in this important exchange.

Sincerely,

David N. Elkins, PhD,  Chair of the Division 32 Open Letter Committee   Email:  David Elkins

Frank Farley, PhD, Member of Committee
Jonathan D.  Raskin, PhD, Member of Committee
Brent Dean Robbins, PhD,  Member of Committee
Donna Rockwell, PsyD, Member of Committee

Resources
 
 

Open Letter and iPetition

Coalition for DSM-5 Reform on Twitter    @dsm5reform

Coalition for DSM-5 Reform on Facebook

Coalition for DSM-5 Reform website

This initiative is also being covered on

The Society for Humanistic Psychology Blog

The Society for Humanistic Psychology on Twitter    @HumanisticPsych

The Society for Humanistic Psychology on Facebook

Filed under American Psychiatric Association (APA), British Psychological Society, Coalition for DSM-5 Reform, Criticism of DSM-V, DSM-5, DSM revision process, DSM-5, DSM-5 draft proposals, DSM-5 in the media, DSM-5 Petitions, DSM-V Tagged with , , , , ,

America Is Over Diagnosed and Over Medicated: Allen Frances on Huffington Post

January 9, 2012 by

America Is Over Diagnosed and Over Medicated: Allen Frances on Huffington Post #1

Post #125 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-1Di

Today, Allen Frances, MD, who chaired the Task Force that had oversight of the development of DSM-IV has published the first of a series of blogs, on Huffington Post, on his concerns for DSM-5.

Huffington Post

Allen Frances | January 9, 2012
Professor Emeritus, Duke University

America Is Over Diagnosed and Over Medicated

“…The really bad news is that the bulk of psychiatry is no longer done by psychiatrists. Psychiatric medicines are most often prescribed by primary care doctors who are always busy and usually under trained in psychiatry. And their diagnostic and treatment decisions are heavily influenced by drug company advertising aimed directly at patients combined with aggressive marketing campaigns aimed at doctors.

“The result is massive overprescription of medicine for off label, untested, and inappropriate indications. Drug companies have more unregulated freedom in the U.S. than anywhere else in the world to push their product where it does not belong. Their success is measured in returns to shareholders, not benefits to patients…”

“…They call them ‘scientific hypotheses’ that can always be tested and corrected after DSM 5 is published. This is dead wrong and dangerously reckless. DSM 5 will have a dramatic effect on peoples lives and everything in it must be certified safe and scientifically sound.

“Final decisions on DSM 5 will be made soon. I will post a series of blogs highlighting its worst proposals and updating the efforts to shoot them down before they can become official…”

Read on here Allen Frances on Huff Po #1

Filed under Allen Frances, American Psychiatric Association (APA), DSM revision process, DSM-5, DSM-5 consultation, DSM-5 draft proposals, DSM-5 in the media, DSM-5 Petitions, DSM-V

← Older posts

Newer posts →