The six most essential questions in psychiatric diagnosis: a pluralogue: conceptual and definitional issues in psychiatric diagnosis Parts 1 and 2

April 27, 2012 by

The six most essential questions in psychiatric diagnosis: a pluralogue: conceptual and definitional issues in psychiatric diagnosis, Parts 1 and 2

Post #161 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-248

Below, I am posting the Abstract and Introduction to Parts 1 and 2 of Philos Ethics Humanit Med Review “The six most essential questions in psychiatric diagnosis: a pluralogue: conceptual and definitional issues in psychiatric diagnosis.”

Part 1 of this Review was published on January 13, 2012; Part 2 was published (as a provisional PDF) on April 18, 2012. I will post Part 3 when it becomes available.

Below Parts 1 and 2, I have posted the PDFs for Phillips J (ed): Symposium on DSM-5: Part 1. Bulletin of the Association for the Advancement of Philosophy and Psychiatry 2010, 17(1):1–26 and Phillips J (ed): Symposium on DSM-5: Part 2. Bulletin of the Association for the Advancement of Philosophy and Psychiatry 2010, 17(2):1–75 out of which grew the concept for the Philos Ethics Humanit Med Review Parts 1 and 2.

This is an interesting series of exchanges which expand on conceptual and definitional issues discussed in these two Bulletins but these are quite lengthy documents, 29 and 30 pp, respectively; PDFs are provided rather than full texts.

Review Part One

The six most essential questions in psychiatric diagnosis: a pluralogue part 1: conceptual and definitional issues in psychiatric diagnosis

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3305603/

Philos Ethics Humanit Med. 2012; 7: 3.
Published online 2012 January 13. doi: 10.1186/1747-5341-7-3 PMCID: PMC3305603

Copyright ©2012 Phillips et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.
Received August 15, 2011; Accepted January 13, 2012.

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

      The six most essential questions Part 1

or: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3305603/pdf/1747-5341-7-3.pdf

Html: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3305603/

or http://www.peh-med.com/content/7/1/3

James Phillips,corresponding author1 Allen Frances,2 Michael A Cerullo,3 John Chardavoyne,1 Hannah S Decker,4 Michael B First,5 Nassir Ghaemi,6 Gary Greenberg,7 Andrew C Hinderliter,8 Warren A Kinghorn,2,9 Steven G LoBello,10 Elliott B Martin,1 Aaron L Mishara,11 Joel Paris,12 Joseph M Pierre,13,14 Ronald W Pies,6,15 Harold A Pincus,5,16,17,18 Douglas Porter,19 Claire Pouncey,20 Michael A Schwartz,21 Thomas Szasz,15 Jerome C Wakefield,22,23 G Scott Waterman,24 Owen Whooley,25 and Peter Zachar10
 
1Department of Psychiatry, Yale School of Medicine, 300 George St., Suite 901, New Haven, CT 06511, USA
2Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University Medical Center, 508 Fulton St., Durham, NC 27710, USA
3Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neuroscience, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, 260 Stetson Street, Suite 3200, Cincinnati, OH 45219, USA
4Department of History, University of Houston, 524 Agnes Arnold, Houston, 77204, USA
5Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, Division of Clinical Phenomenology, New York State Psychiatric Institute, 1051 Riverside Drive, New York, NY 10032, USA
6Department of Psychiatry, Tufts Medical Center, 800 Washington Street, Boston, MA 02111, USA
7Human Relations Counseling Service, 400 Bayonet Street Suite #202, New London, CT 06320, USA
8Department of Linguistics, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign 4080 Foreign Languages Building, 707 S Mathews Ave, Urbana, IL 61801, USA
9Duke Divinity School, Box 90968, Durham, NC 27708, USA
10Department of Psychology, Auburn University Montgomery, 7061 Senators Drive, Montgomery, AL 36117, USA
11Department of Clinical Psychology, The Chicago School of Professional Psychology, 325 North Wells Street, Chicago IL, 60654, USA
12Institute of Community and Family Psychiatry, SMBD-Jewish General Hospital, Department of Psychiatry, McGill University, 4333 cote Ste. Catherine, Montreal H3T1E4 Quebec, Canada
13Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, 760 Westwood Plaza, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA
14VA West Los Angeles Healthcare Center, 11301 Wilshire Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90073, USA
15Department of Psychiatry, SUNY Upstate Medical University, 750 East Adams St., #343CWB, Syracuse, NY 13210, USA
16Irving Institute for Clinical and Translational Research, Columbia University Medical Center, 630 West 168th Street, New York, NY 10032, USA
17New York Presbyterian Hospital, 1051 Riverside Drive, Unit 09, New York, NY 10032, USA
18Rand Corporation, 1776 Main St Santa Monica, California 90401, USA
19Central City Behavioral Health Center, 2221 Philip Street, New Orleans, LA 70113, USA
20Center for Bioethics, University of Pennsylvania, 3401 Market Street, Suite 320 Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA
21Department of Psychiatry, Texas AMHSC College of Medicine, 4110 Guadalupe Street, Austin, Texas 78751, USA
22Silver School of Social Work, New York University, 1 Washington Square North, New York, NY 10003, USA
23Department of Psychiatry, NYU Langone Medical Center, 550 First Ave, New York, NY 10016, USA
24Department of Psychiatry, University of Vermont College of Medicine, 89 Beaumont Avenue, Given Courtyard N104, Burlington, Vermont 05405, USA
25Institute for Health, Health Care Policy, and Aging Research, Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, 112 Paterson St., New Brunswick, NJ 08901, USA

Abstract

In face of the multiple controversies surrounding the DSM process in general and the development of DSM-5 in particular, we have organized a discussion around what we consider six essential questions in further work on the DSM. The six questions involve: 1) the nature of a mental disorder; 2) the definition of mental disorder; 3) the issue of whether, in the current state of psychiatric science, DSM-5 should assume a cautious, conservative posture or an assertive, transformative posture; 4) the role of pragmatic considerations in the construction of DSM-5; 5) the issue of utility of the DSM – whether DSM-III and IV have been designed more for clinicians or researchers, and how this conflict should be dealt with in the new manual; and 6) the possibility and advisability, given all the problems with DSM-III and IV, of designing a different diagnostic system. Part I of this article will take up the first two questions. With the first question, invited commentators express a range of opinion regarding the nature of psychiatric disorders, loosely divided into a realist position that the diagnostic categories represent real diseases that we can accurately name and know with our perceptual abilities, a middle, nominalist position that psychiatric disorders do exist in the real world but that our diagnostic categories are constructs that may or may not accurately represent the disorders out there, and finally a purely constructivist position that the diagnostic categories are simply constructs with no evidence of psychiatric disorders in the real world. The second question again offers a range of opinion as to how we should define a mental or psychiatric disorder, including the possibility that we should not try to formulate a definition. The general introduction, as well as the introductions and conclusions for the specific questions, are written by James Phillips, and the responses to commentaries are written by Allen Frances.

General Introduction

This article has its own history, which is worth recounting to provide the context of its composition.

As reviewed by Regier and colleagues [1], DSM-5 was in the planning stage since 1999, with a publication date initially planned for 2010 (now rescheduled to 2013). The early work was published as a volume of six white papers, A Research Agenda for DSM-V [2] in 2002. In 2006 David Kupfer was appointed Chairman, and Darrel Regier Vice-Chairman, of the DSM-5 Task Force. Other members of the Task Force were appointed in 2007, and members of the various Work Groups in 2008.

From the beginning of the planning process the architects of DSM-5 recognized a number of problems with DSM-III and DSM-IV that warranted attention in the new manual. These problems are now well known and have received much discussion, but I will quote the summary provided by Regier and colleagues:

Over the past 30 years, there has been a continuous testing of multiple hypotheses that are inherent in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, from the third edition (DSM-III) to the fourth (DSM-IV)… The expectation of Robins and Guze was that each clinical syndrome described in the Feighner criteria, RDC, and DSM-III would ultimately be validated by its separation from other disorders, common clinical course, genetic aggregation in families, and further differentiation by future laboratory tests–which would now include anatomical and functional imaging, molecular genetics, pathophysiological variations, and neuropsychological testing. To the original validators Kendler added differential response to treatment, which could include both pharmacological and psychotherapeutic interventions… However, as these criteria have been tested in multiple epidemiological, clinical, and genetic studies through slightly revised DSM-III-R and DSM-IV editions, the lack of clear separation of these syndromes became apparent from the high levels of comorbidity that were reported… In addition, treatment response became less specific as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors were found to be effective for a wide range of anxiety, mood, and eating disorders and atypical antipsychotics received indications for schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and treatment-resistant major depression. More recently, it was found that a majority of patients with entry diagnoses of major depression in the Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR*D) study had significant anxiety symptoms, and this subgroup had a more severe clinical course and was less responsive to available treatments… Likewise, we have come to understand that we are unlikely to find single gene underpinnings for most mental disorders, which are more likely to have polygenetic vulnerabilities interacting with epigenetic factors (that switch genes on and off) and environmental exposures to produce disorders. [[2], pp. 645-646]

As the work of the DSM-5 Task Force and Work Groups moved forward, a controversy developed that involved Robert Spitzer and Allen Frances, Chairmen respectively of the DSM-III and DSM-IV Task Forces. The controversy began with Spitzer’s Letter to the Editor, “DSM-V: Open and Transparent,” on July 18, 2008 in Psychiatric Times [3], detailing his unsuccessful effort to obtain minutes of the DSM-5 Task Force meetings. In ensuing months Allen Frances joined him in an exchange with members of the Task Force. In a series of articles and blog postings in Psychiatric Times, Frances (at times with Spitzer) carried out a sustained critique of the DSM-5 work in which he focused both on issues of transparency and issues of process and content [4-16]. The latter involved the Task Force and Work Group efforts to address the problems of DSM-IV with changes that, in Frances’ opinion, were premature and not backed by current scientific evidence. These changes included new diagnoses such as mixed anxiety-depression, an expanded list of addictive disorders, the addition of subthreshold conditions such as Psychosis Risk Syndrome, and overly inclusive criteria sets – all destined, in Frances’ judgment, to expand the population of the mentally ill, with the inevitable consequence of increasing the number of false positive diagnoses and the attendant consequence of exposing individuals unnecessarily to potent psychotropic medications. The changes also included extensive dimensional measures to be used with minimal scientific foundation.

Frances pointed out that the NIMH was embarked on a major effort to upgrade the scientific foundation of psychiatric disorders (described below by Michael First), and that pending the results of that research effort in the coming years, we should for now mostly stick with the existing descriptive, categorical system, in full awareness of all its limitations. In brief, he has argued, we are not ready for the “paradigm shift” hoped for in the 2002 A Research Agenda.

We should note that as the DSM-5 Work Groups were being developed, the Task Force rejected a proposal in 2008 to add a Conceptual Issues Work Group [17] – well before Spitzer and Frances began their online critiques.

In the course of this debate over DSM-5 I proposed to Allen in early 2010 that we use the pages of the Bulletin of the Association for the Advancement of Philosophy and Psychiatry (of which I am Editor) to expand and bring more voices into the discussion. This led to two issues of the Bulletin in 2010 devoted to conceptual issues in DSM-5 [18,19]. (Vol 17, No 1 of the AAPP Bulletin will be referred to as Bulletin 1, and Vol 17, No 2 will be referred to as Bulletin 2. Both are available at http://alien.dowling.edu/~cperring/aapp/bulletin.htm. webcite) Interest in this topic is reflected in the fact that the second Bulletin issue, with commentaries on Frances’ extended response in the first issue, and his responses to the commentaries, reached over 70,000 words.

Also in 2010, as Frances continued his critique through blog postings in Psychiatric Times, John Sadler and I began a series of regular, DSM-5 conceptual issues blogs in the same journal [20-33].

With the success of the Bulletin symposium, we approached the editor of PEHM, James Giordano, about using the pages of PEHM to continue the DSM-5 discussion under a different format, and with the goal of reaching a broader audience. The new format would be a series of “essential questions” for DSM-5, commentaries by a series of individuals (some of them commentators from the Bulletin issues, others making a first appearance in this article), and responses to the commentaries by Frances. Such is the origin of this article. (The general introduction, individual introductions, and conclusion are written by this author (JP), the responses by Allen Frances.

For this exercise we have distilled the wide-ranging discussions from the Bulletin issues into six questions, listed below with the format in which they were presented to commentators. (As explained below, the umpire metaphor in Question 1 is taken from Frances’ discussion in Bulletin 1.)…

Full document in PDF format

 

Review Part Two

(Note: Part Two was published on April 18, 2012 and addresses Questions 3 and 4. The complete article is available as a provisional PDF. The fully formatted PDF and HTML versions are in production. I will replace with the final version when available.)

The six most essential questions in psychiatric diagnosis: A pluralogue part 2: Issues of conservatism and pragmatism in psychiatric diagnosis

Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine 2012, 7:8 doi:10.1186/1747-5341-7-8

http://www.peh-med.com/content/7/1/8/abstract

Published: 18 April 2012

      The six most essential questions Part 2 Provisional

The six most essential questions in psychiatric diagnosis: A pluralogue part 2: Issues of conservatism and pragmatism in psychiatric diagnosis

James Phillips, Allen Frances, Michael A Cerullo, John Chardavoyne, Hannah S Decker, Michael B First, Nassir Ghaemi, Gary Greenberg, Andrew C Hinderliter, Warren A Kinghorn, Steven G LoBello, Elliott B Martin, Aaron L Mishara, Joel Paris, Joseph M Pierre, Ronald W Pies, Harold A Pincus, Douglas Porter, Claire Pouncey, Michael A Schwartz, Thomas Szasz, Jerome C Wakefield, G Scott Waterman, Owen Whooley and Peter Zachar

Abstract (provisional)

In face of the multiple controversies surrounding the DSM process in general and the development of DSM-5 in particular, we have organized a discussion around what we consider six essential questions in further work on the DSM. The six questions involve: 1) the nature of a mental disorder; 2) the definition of mental disorder; 3) the issue of whether, in the current state of psychiatric science, DSM-5 should assume a cautious, conservative posture or an assertive, transformative posture; 4) the role of pragmatic considerations in the construction of DSM-5; 5) the issue of utility of the DSM – whether DSM-III and IV have been designed more for clinicians or researchers, and how this conflict should be dealt with in the new manual; and 6) the possibility and advisability, given all the problems with DSM-III and IV, of designing a different diagnostic system. Part I of this article took up the first two questions. Part II will take up the second two questions. Question 3 deals with the question as to whether DSM-V should assume a conservative or assertive posture in making changes from DSM-IV. That question in turn breaks down into discussion of diagnoses that depend on, and aim toward, empirical, scientific validation, and diagnoses that are more value-laden and less amenable to scientific validation. Question 4 takes up the role of pragmatic consideration in a psychiatric nosology, whether the purely empirical considerations need to be tempered by considerations of practical consequence. As in Part 1 of this article, the general introduction, as well as the introductions and conclusions for the specific questions, are written by James Phillips, and the responses to commentaries are written by Allen Frances.

The complete article is available as a provisional PDF. The fully formatted PDF and HTML versions are in production.

 

Symposium on DSM-5: Parts 1 and 2

      Bulletin Vol 17 No 1

Phillips J (ed): Symposium on DSM-5: Part 1. Bulletin of the Association for the
Advancement of Philosophy and Psychiatry 2010, 17(1):1–26

      Bulletin Vol 17 No 2

Phillips J (ed): Symposium on DSM-5: Part 2. Bulletin of the Association for the Advancement of Philosophy and Psychiatry 2010, 17(2):1–75

 

One focus for this site has been the monitoring of the various iterations towards the revision of the Somatoform Disorders categories of DSM-IV, for which radical reorganization of existing DSM categories and criteria is proposed.

As the DSM-5 Development site documentation currently stands (April 27, 2012), the “Somatic Symptom Disorders” Work Group (Chaired by Joel E. Dimsdale, M.D.) proposes to rename Somatoform Disorders to “Somatic Symptom Disorders” and to fold a number of existing somatoform disorders together under a new rubric, which the Work Group proposes to call “Complex Somatic Symptom Disorder.”

Complex Somatic Symptom Disorder (CSSD) would include the previous DSM-IV diagnoses of somatization disorder [DSM IV code 300.81], undifferentiated somatoform disorder [DSM IV code 300.81], hypochondriasis [DSM IV code 300.7], as well as some presentations of pain disorder [DSM IV code 307].

There is a more recently proposed, Simple Somatic Symptom Disorder (SSSD), which requires symptom duration of just one month, as opposed to the six months required to meet the CSSD criteria. There is also an Illness Anxiety Disorder (hypochondriasis without somatic symptoms); and a proposal to rename Conversion Disorder to Functional Neurological Disorder and possibly locate under Dissociative Disorders.

There is some commentary on the Somatoform Disorders in DSM-IV in this discussion from Bulletin 1:

Bulletin Vol 17 No 1, Page 19:

Doing No Harm: The Case Against Conservatism

G. Scott Waterman, M.D. David P. Curley, Ph.D.

Department of Psychiatry, University of Vermont College of Medicine

Filed under Allen Frances, American Psychiatric Association (APA), Criticism of DSM-V, DSM-5, DSM revision process, DSM-5, DSM-5 draft proposals, DSM-V, Functional Somatic Syndrome (FSS), MUS, Somatic Symptom Disorder, Somatoform Disorders Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

DSM-5 controversies, Cosgrove-Krimsky on potential COIs, counter statement from APA’s John Oldham and APA May Annual Meeting preliminary program

March 17, 2012 by

DSM-5 controversies, Cosgrove and Krimsky on potential COIs, counter statement from APA’s John Oldham and APA May Annual Meeting preliminary program

Post #152 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-20e

Update @ March 20, 2012

Medscape Medical News > Psychiatry

APA Criticized Over DSM-5 Panel Members’ Industry Ties

Megan Brooks | March 20, 2012

March 20, 2012 — Two researchers have raised concerns that the upcoming Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition (DSM-5) has been unduly influenced by the pharmaceutical industry, owing to financial conflicts of interest (FCOI) among DSM-5 panel members.

In an essay published in the March issue of PLoS Medicine, Lisa Cosgrove, PhD, from the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, and Sheldon Krimsky, PhD, from the Department of Public Health and Community Medicine, Tufts University, Boston, say the FCOI disclosure policy does not go far enough and has not been accompanied by a reduction in the conflicts of interest of DSM-5 panel members.

However, John M. Oldham, MD, President of the American Psychiatric Association (APA), “strongly” disagrees.

Read on

At DSM5 in Distress, Allen Frances, MD, who had chaired the task force for DSM-IV, writes:

According to this week’s Time magazine, the American Psychiatric Association has just recruited a new public relations spokesman  who previously worked at the Department of Defense. This is an appropriate choice for an association that substitutes a fortress mentality and  warrior bluster for substantive discussion. The article quotes him as saying: “Frances is a ‘dangerous’ man trying to undermine an earnest academic endeavor.”

Frances asks:

Am I A Dangerous Man?

No, but I do raise twelve dangerous questions

Allen Frances, M.D. | March 16, 2012

published in response to:

TIME Magazine

What Counts As Crazy?

John Cloud | Online March 14, 2012

Print edition | March 19, 2012

…The mind, in our modern conception, is an array of circuits we can manipulate with chemicals to ease, if not cure, depression, anxiety and other disorders. Drugs like Prozac have transformed how we respond to mental illness. But while this revolution has reshaped treatments, it hasn’t done much to help us diagnose what’s wrong to begin with. Instead of ordering lab tests, psychiatrists usually have to size up people using subjective descriptions of the healthy vs. the afflicted.

…Which is why the revision of a single book is roiling the world of mental health, pitting psychiatrists against one another in bitter…

Full article available to subscribers

Pharmalot

Should APA Purge DSM Panels With Pharma Ties?

Ed Silverman | March 15, 2012

As publication of the next version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, also known as DSM-5, approaches in May 2013, the so-called bible of psychiatrists is generating increasing scrutiny. The reason, of course, is that classification of various illnesses can help psychiatrists determine how to pursue treatment, which can involve prescribing medications that can ring registers for drugmakers…

Read on

Statement from John M. Oldham, M.D.

Mr Silverman’s report quotes from a statement issued on March 15 by John M. Oldham, M.D., President of the American Psychiatric Association (APA), in response to the Cosgrove and Krimsky PLoS Medicine Essay, “A Comparison of DSM-IV and DSM-5 Panel Members’ Financial Associations with Industry: A Pernicious Problem Persists.”

Read Dr Oldham’s statement here in PDF format:

    PDF statement John M Oldham, M.D., March 15, 2012

or full text below:

March 15, 2012

Statement for John M. Oldham, M.D., President of the American Psychiatric Association:

In their article, “A Comparison of DSM-IV and DSM-5 Panel Members’ Financial Associations with Industry: A Pernicious Problem Persists,” which appeared in the March issue of the journal Public Library of Science, and which ABC and other news outlets quoted, Cosgrove and Krimsky question the work of DSM-5’s volunteer Task Force and Work Group members because of publicly disclosed relationships with the pharmaceutical industry. Although we appreciate that Cosgrove and Krimsky acknowledge the commitment the American Psychiatric Association (APA) has already made to reducing potential financial conflicts of interest, we strongly disagree with their analysis and presentation of APA’s publicly available disclosure documents. Specifically, the Cosgrove-Krimsky article does not take into account the level to which DSM-5 Task Force and Work Group members have minimized or divested themselves from relationships with the pharmaceutical industry.

In 2012, 72 percent of the 153 members report no relationships with the pharmaceutical industry during the previous year. The scope of the relationships reported by the other 28 percent of member varies:

• 12 percent reported grant support only, including funding or receipt of medications for clinical trial research;

• 10 percent reported consultations including advice on the development of new compounds to improve treatments; and

• 7 percent reported receiving honoraria.

Additionally, since there were no disclosure requirements for journals, symposia or the DSM-IV Task Force at the time of the 1994 release of DSM-IV, Cosgrove and Krimsky’s comparison of DSM-IV and DSM-5 Task Force and Work Group members is not valid. In assembling the DSM-5’s Task Force and Work Groups, the APA’s Board of Trustees developed an extensive process of written disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. These disclosures are required of all professionals who participate in the development of DSM-5. An independent APA committee reviews these disclosure documents, which are updated annually or whenever a member’s financial interests change. Individuals are only permitted to serve on a work group or the Task Force if they are judged to have no significant financial interests.

The Board of Trustees’ guiding principles and disclosure policies for DSM panel members require annual disclosure of any competing interests or potentially conflicting relationships with entities that have an interest in psychiatric diagnoses and treatments. In addition, all Task Force and Work Group members agreed that, starting in 2007 and continuing for the duration of their work on DSM-5, each member’s total annual income derived from industry sources would not exceed $10,000 in any calendar year. This standard is more stringent than requirements for employees at the National Institutes of Health and for members of advisory committees for the Food and Drug Administration. And since their participation in DSM-5 began, many Task Force members have gone to greater lengths by terminating many of their industry relationships.

Potential financial conflicts of interest are serious concerns that merit careful, ongoing monitoring. The APA remains committed to reducing potential bias and conflicts of interest through our stringent guidelines.

A number of stories followed the publication of the Cosgrove and Krimsky PLoS Medicine Essay. Links for selected reports in this March 14 Dx Revision Watch post:

Cosgrove, Sheldon: 69% of DSM-5 task force members report pharmaceutical industry ties – review identifies potential COIs

Full text of Essay available here on PLoS site under “Open-access”:

A Comparison of DSM-IV and DSM-5 Panel Members’ Financial Associations with Industry: A Pernicious Problem Persists

Or open     PDF here

Long article from Sandra G. Boodman for Washington Post

Antipsychotic drugs grow more popular for patients without mental illness

Sandra G. Boodman | March 12, 2012

Adriane Fugh-Berman was stunned by the question: Two graduate students who had no symptoms of mental illness wondered if she thought they should take a powerful schizophrenia drug each had been prescribed to treat insomnia.

“It’s a total outrage,” said Fugh-Berman, a physician who is an associate professor of pharmacology at Georgetown University. “These kids needed some basic sleep [advice], like reducing their intake of caffeine and alcohol, not a highly sedating drug.”

Those Georgetown students exemplify a trend that alarms medical experts, policymakers and patient advocates: the skyrocketing increase in the off-label use of an expensive class of drugs called atypical antipsychotics. Until the past decade these 11 drugs, most approved in the 1990s, had been reserved for the approximately 3 percent of Americans with the most disabling mental illnesses, chiefly schizophrenia and bipolar disorder; more recently a few have been approved to treat severe depression.

But these days atypical antipsychotics — the most popular are Seroquel, Zyprexa and Abilify — are being prescribed by psychiatrists and primary-care doctors to treat a panoply of conditions for which they have not been approved, including anxiety, attention-deficit disorder, sleep difficulties, behavioral problems in toddlers and dementia. These new drugs account for more than 90 percent of the market and have eclipsed an older generation of antipsychotics. Two recent reports have found that youths in foster care, some less than a year old, are taking more psychotropic drugs than other children, including those with the severest forms of mental illness…

Read on

Financial Times

New autism diagnostic criteria may encourage symptomatic approach to drug use

Anusha Kambhampaty in New York, Abigail Moss in London | March 15, 2012

MedPage Today

DSM-5 Critics Pump Up the Volume

John Gever, Senior Editor | February 29, 2012

…In a conversation with MedPage Today, APA President John Oldham, MD, and DSM-5 task force chairman David Kupfer, MD, defended their handling of the revision and argued that many of the criticisms were off-base.

For starters, Kupfer said, the proposed revisions were still open to change or abandonment. The DSM-5 will assume its near-final form in June or July, he said – meaning that the APA’s annual meeting in May would provide another forum to debate the changes.

“[The proposals] are still open to revision,” he said. “The door is still very much open…”

[Ed: A third and final stakeholder review and comment period is anticipated in “May at the latest.”  Benedict Carey reported for New York Times, January 19, “The revisions are about 90 percent complete and will be final by December, according to Dr. David J. Kupfer…chairman of the task force making the revisions.”]

Read full Medpage Today article

Psychiatric News Volume 47, Number 4, February 17, 2012 publishes the preliminary schedule for the APA’s May annual meeting:

    PDF

APA’S 165TH ANNUAL MEETING, PHILADELPHIA, MAY 5-9, 2012
Preliminary Schedule

Filed under Allen Frances, American Psychiatric Association (APA), Bereavement, 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-5 Petitions, DSM-5 timeline, Linda Cosgrove Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

Part Two: William Heisel: Slap: American Psychiatric Association Targets One DSM5 Critic, Ignores Others

February 29, 2012 by

Part Two: William Heisel: Slap: American Psychiatric Association Targets One DSM5 Critic, Ignores Others

Post #150 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-1Z6

Update @ March 1, 2012

Additional commentary:

Neurobonkers, March 1, 2012

APA Shut Down DSM-5 Blogger

—————-

Knight Science Journal Tracker, Paul Raeburn, March 1, 2012

Psychiatrists issue legal threat, silencing blogger critical of diagnostic manual.

also

National Association of Science Writers

—————-

On Monday, investigative health reporter, William Heisel, published Part One of his report on the two “cease and desist” letters served to me on December 22, on behalf of the publishing arm of the American Psychiatric Association.

You can view these letters and correspondence here:

    APA correspondence

 

Read Part One of William Heisel’s report here:

Slap: American Psychiatric Association Pressures Brit DSM5 Blogger Suzy Chapman

 

Today, William Heisel continues the story:

Reporting on Health

William Heisel’s Antidote Investigating Untold Health Stories

William Heisel | February 29, 2012

Slap: American Psychiatric Association Targets One DSM5 Critic, Ignores Others

From the way the American Psychiatric Association threatened UK writer Suzy Chapman, one would think APA is fighting legal battles everywhere to protect its trademarks.

But Chapman appears to be in an elite category. Antidote wrote Monday about how APA forced Chapman to change the name and URL of her DSM-5 and ICD-11 Watch site, saying it infringed on APA’s trademark for its main guidebook, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).

But similar sites and uses of APA trademarks abound. Why hasn’t the APA gone after them?

Read on

 

Related posts:

Earlier commentaries:

Media coverage: American Psychiatric Association (APA) “cease and desist” v DSM-5 Watch website; Legal information and resources for bloggers and site owners

Is DSM 5 A Public Trust Or An APA Cash Cow? Commercialism And Censorship Trump Concern For Quality by Allen Frances APA forces domain name change for DSM-5 and ICD-11 Watch site

Pity the poor American Psychiatric Association, Parts 1 and 2: Gary Greenberg

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


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, Internet censorship, SLAPP suit Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

William Heisel’s Antidote: Slap: American Psychiatric Association Pressures Brit DSM5 Blogger Suzy Chapman

February 27, 2012 by

William Heisel’s Antidote: Slap: American Psychiatric Association Pressures Brit DSM5 Blogger Suzy Chapman

Post #149 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-1Yx

On December 22, I was served with two “cease and desist” letters on behalf of the publishing arm of the American Psychiatric Association, publishers of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders – the DSM.

Which disorders go into the next DSM and how those disorders are defined is a public interest issue. Public interest and public trust are best served by an open and transparent development process – not by issuing threats of legal action against those providing internet platforms on which patients and professionals rely for timely and accurate information around the DSM-5 development process and how they might participate in that process, as stakeholders.

The American Psychiatric Association’s publishing arm has the right to protect its intellectual property and pursue trademark infringements where a case for improper use can be made. But employing heavy-handed, punitive, partial and legally questionable tactics against “fair use” of the DSM 5 mark, forcing internet site owners to change web addresses, is putting commercial interests before public participation – a PR fail and a disturbing abuse of power.

    APA correspondence

William Heisel takes up the story:

Reporting on Health

William Heisel’s Antidote Investigating Untold Health Stories

Slap: American Psychiatric Association Pressures Brit DSM5 Blogger Suzy Chapman

http://www.bit.ly/ydSocK

William Heisel | February 27, 2012

If you have a serious interest in a brand, product or company, you can, in a few minutes, set up your own website with a clever domain name that includes your target.

Jim Romenesko did this with Starbucks Gossip. A group of unions and activists did this with Making Change at Wal-Mart. And a team of obsessive Clark Kent loyalists did this with the Superman Super Site.

A few years ago, British writer Suzy Chapman started tracking the proposed changes by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) to psychiatry’s guidebook: the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)…

Read on

Related posts:

Is DSM 5 A Public Trust Or An APA Cash Cow? Commercialism And Censorship Trump Concern For Quality by Allen Frances APA forces domain name change for DSM-5 and ICD-11 Watch site

Media coverage: American Psychiatric Association (APA) ”cease and desist” v DSM-5 Watch website; Legal information and resources for bloggers and site owners

Pity the poor American Psychiatric Association, Parts 1 and 2: Gary Greenberg

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


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, Internet censorship, SLAPP suit Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

New Scientist, Prospect magazine and Allen Frances asks: Is Government Intervention Needed to Prevent an Unsafe DSM 5?

February 24, 2012 by

New Scientist and Prospect magazine on DSM-5; Allen Frances asks: Is Government Intervention Needed to Prevent an Unsafe DSM 5?

Post #148 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-1Yh

Additional recent coverage of DSM-5 controversies:

Daily Mail

Michael Hanlon’s Science Blog | February 28, 2012

The Madness of American psychiatrists

DSM5 in Distress

Do We Need a DSM-V?
No, says an editorial from the Society of Biological Psychiatry

Allen J. Frances, M.D. | February 27, 2012

New Scientist print and online

New Scientist

There’s no sense in revising the psychiatrist’s bible

Online: Liz Else | February 22, 2012

Magazine issue 2853 (Subscription or paywall for access)

Print edition: Page 31 February 25, 2012

One minute with…Nick Craddock

There’s no sense in simply revising the psychiatrist’s diagnostic bible: it will need to be totally replaced to fit the emerging science…

Nick Craddock is professor of psychiatry at the Institute of Psychological Medicine and Clinical Neurosciences at Cardiff University School of Medicine, and is the director of the Welsh National Centre for Mental Health

Full version (Subscription required for online access)

Prospect Magazine

Issue 192, March 2012 (Subscription required for online access)

Mental disorder

By Anjana Ahuja
Anjana Ahuja is a freelance science journalist

In 1973, the American psychologist David Rosenhan sent eight healthy people, and also himself, to visit mental institutions and claim they were hearing voices. All were certified mad; some were incarcerated for a month. Rosenhan’s paper, “On Being Sane in Insane Places,” created a media sensation and a crisis in psychiatry. Doctors, it seemed, unlike suspicious fellow patients, could not tell a lucid stooge from a lunatic.

The ensuing controversy led to the tightening of the “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders” (DSM), the “psychiatrists’ bible” that lists mental disorders and their symptoms. The DSM, first published in 1952, is produced by the American Psychiatric Association (APA), which, every decade or two, assembles a hundred or so mental health professionals to review disorders in the light of new science or shifting cultural norms…

Full version (Subscription required for online access)

Huffington Post

Allen Frances, MD | 02.24.12

Is Government Intervention Needed to Prevent an Unsafe DSM 5?

Donna Rockwell, Psy.D. was once a CNN reporter covering Capitol Hill. She is now a psychologist and a member of the petition committee calling for an independent scientific review of DSM 5. With her journalist’s instinct for the crux of any story, Dr. Rockwell has focused on increasing public scrutiny of DSM 5. She hopes to stimulate government intervention to ensure that DSM 5 meets its public trust. Dr Rockwell sent this email on Feb. 17:

You recently described the press as the one last hope to ensure that DSM 5 will be safe and sound. While I certainly agree that the press can do a great deal, there is an additional last hope you didn’t mention, one that could be even more powerful. Don’t discount the role of government intervention as a way of influencing the American Psychiatric Association.

I am currently networking on Capitol Hill and also with the Department of Defense and with the Veterans Administration. My goal is to increase awareness of the risks of DSM 5 and to recruit government assistance in forcing APA to abandon dangerous suggestions.

I tell government officials that DSM 5 will have a big impact on many important public health and public policy decisions that will directly affect their constituents. My short list includes: 1) raising the percentage of our citizens who are considered to be mentally ill — they are surprised to learn that it is already an astounding 50% lifetime; 2) increasing the cost of drug treatments and their harmful side effects; 3) pulling scarce mental health resources away from those who are really ill and most need them; 4) distorting benefit determinations for insurance, disability, compensation, and school services; and 5) creating great confusion in the courts.

The people I speak to all quickly understand the public health and public policy significance of DSM 5 and that government has a big stake in making it safe.

I am especially reaching out to the HELP (Health, Education, Labor & Pensions) committee chaired by Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA), which oversees mental health issues and to Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA), who has been very successful in holding doctors accountable. People in government are particularly concerned when I tell them that DSM 5 will have its worst impact on the most vulnerable populations — children, teenagers, and the elderly; veterans; and the severely mentally ill. I think the sentiment is growing that government intervention will be necessary to protect the public interest from the guild interests of the American Psychiatric Association and the economic interests of the drug companies.

I use concrete examples to get my points across. Most alarming, that DSM 5 will increase the already shameful overuse of antipsychotic drugs in kids and thus contribute to the dangerous epidemic of childhood obesity. DSM 5 will also greatly expand the diagnosis and medication treatment of ADD and indirectly facilitate the booming illegal market in prescription stimulants. DSM 5 will turn normal grief into depression. And DSM 5 will scare people into thinking they are on the road to dementia when all they have is the normal forgetfulness of aging. The Hill staffers I talk to all seem understand the risks of DSM 5 and I hope they will soon hold hearings. There is also considerable interest in the risks of DSM 5 at the VA and at DOD, where polypharmacy has been such a big problem.

The general public can help by calling or emailing congressional representatives to request protection from DSM 5. People should demand that DSM 5 be subjected to an outside, unbiased scientific review before accepting the controversial proposals that are getting so much negative press attention. I hope a legislative option can be forged in this battle to protect the nation’s mental health from the excesses of DSM 5.

I do wonder how loudly must the public and the professional mental health community shout, “Stop!”, before reason prevails. We need a government agency or elected official to take the lead in protecting the American people from the impending crisis of medicalised normality and excessive prescription drug use. The government must apply the brakes on DSM-5 before pharmacological over-kill impacts harmfully on even more people.”

As I read this, I find it both sad and silly that DSM 5 has allowed things to degenerate to the point where government intervention may indeed be necessary. DSM 5 has stubbornly ignored the general consensus that many of its suggestions simply make no sense and may cause grave damage both to public health and public policy. The DSM 5 hot potato suggestions should have been dropped long ago. They certainly must be rejected now.

Adding a new diagnoses in psychiatry can be far more dangerous than approving one of the new “me-too” drugs that so often come to market. It is paradoxical and nonsensical for us to carefully vet new drugs through a fairly rigorous FDA procedure but at the same time allow new diagnoses to be introduced through a badly flawed decision-making process completely controlled by just one professional organization that has lost its credibility. The new diagnoses suggested by DSM 5 will lead to widespread misdiagnosis and inappropriate drug use — causing far more damage than could possible be wrought by any new “me-too” drug.

To date, APA has failed to provide appropriate governance. DSM 5 has proven unable to govern itself, is not governed by APA, is not responsive to the heated opposition of mental health professionals and the public, and is insensitive to being shamed repeatedly by the world press. Government intervention may turn out to be the only hope to prevent massive misdiagnosis and all its harmful, unintended consequences.

Over 12,000 individuals and organizations have now signed the Coalition for DSM-5 Reform petition

Mental health professionals and mental health organizations can sign the petition here:

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/dsm5/

For more information on the petition see: 

https://dxrevisionwatch.wordpress.com/coalition-for-dsm-5-reform/

or go to the petition website, here: Coalition for DSM-5 Reform website

http://dsm5-reform.com/

Please note the Coalition for DSM-5 Reform petition is intended for endorsement by mental health organizations and professional bodies and for signing by mental health professionalsnot intended for signing by patients.

Dx Revision Watch has no connection with the Coalition for DSM-5 Reform, its Open Letter initiative or associated petition. All enquiries relating to the Coalition for DSM-5 Reform should be addressed directly to Dr David Elkins, Ph.D., Chair, Coalition for DSM-5 Reform committee.

Filed under Allen Frances, American Psychiatric Association (APA), Bereavement, DSM revision process, DSM-5, DSM-5 draft proposals, DSM-5 in the media, DSM-5 Petitions, DSM-5 timeline, New Scientist Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

Round-up: Recent commentaries by Allen Frances, MD, on a DSM-5 in distress

February 22, 2012 by

Round-up: Recent commentaries by Allen Frances, MD, on a DSM-5 in distress

Post #146 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-1X2

Allen Frances’ Blog at Huffington Post

DSM 5 Freezes Out Its Stakeholders

Allen Frances, MD | February 21, 2012

Scary news. The Chair of the DSM 5 Task Force, Dr. David Kupfer, has indicated that 90 percent of the decisions on DSM 5 have already been made.

Why so scary? DSM 5 is the new revision of the psychiatric diagnosis manual, meant to become official in May 2013. It proposes a radical redefinition of the boundary between mental disorder and normality, greatly expanding the former at the expense of the latter. Understandably, this ambitious medicalization of the human condition has generated unprecedented opposition, both from the public and from mental heath professionals. To top it off, the DSM 5 proposals are poorly written, unreliable, and likely to cause the misdiagnosis and the excessive treatment of millions of people.

Under normal circumstances the DSM 5 team would have taken the many criticisms to heart, gone back to the drawing board, and improved the quality and acceptability of their product. After all, the customer is very often right. But this DSM process has been strangely secretive, unable to self-correct, and stubbornly closed to suggestions coming from outside. As a result, current DSM 5 proposals show very little improvement over poorly done first drafts posted in February 2010.

Is there any hope of a last-minute save? I have gathered opinions from three well-informed DSM 5 watchers. They were asked to assess the current state of DSM 5 and offer suggestions about future prospects. The first comment comes from Suzy Chapman, a public advocate, whose website provides the most comprehensive documentary source on the development of DSM 5 and ICD-11. Ms Chapman writes:

DSM 5 consistently misses every one of its deadlines and then fails to update its website with a new schedule. The Timeline was finally revised a couple of weeks ago, but we are still no nearer to a firm date for the final period of invited public comment. We’ve known since November that DSM 5 is stuffed as far as its planned January-February comment period and that Dr Kupfer now reckons “no later than May” – but all the website says is “Spring.” That’s no use to those of us who need to alert patient groups and their professional advisers…

Psychology Today

DSM5 in Distress
The DSM’s impact on mental health practice and research.
by Allen Frances, M.D.

ICD-10-CM Delay Removes Excuse For Rushing DSM 5 Into Premature Publication: Time needed to avoid harmful document

Allen Frances, MD | February 22, 2012

Until yesterday, there were only two reasons to stick with the projected date of DSM 5 publication (May 2013): 1) the need to coordinate DSM 5 with ICD-10-CM coding, which was scheduled to start Oct 2013; and, 2) the need to protect APA publishing profits in order to meet budget projections.

The first reason just dropped out. Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen G. Sebelius has announced that the start date for ICD-10-CM has been postponed. It is not yet clear for how long, but most likely a year (see http://www.dhhs.gov/news/press/2012pres/02/20120216a.html ).

also on Psychiatric Times

Registration required for access

ICD-10-CM Delay Removes Excuse For Rushing DSM-5 Into Premature Publication

and Education Update

Psychology Today

DSM5 in Distress

DSM 5 to the Barricades on Grief

Defending The Indefensible

Allen Frances, MD | February 18, 2012

The storm of opposition to DSM 5 is now focused on its silly and unnecessary proposal to medicalize grief. DSM 5 would encourage the diagnosis of ‘Major Depressive Disorder’ almost immediately after the loss of a loved one—having just 2 weeks of sadness and loss of interest along with reduced appetite, sleep, and energy would earn the MDD label (and all too often an unnecessary and potentially harmful pill treatment). This makes no sense. To paraphrase Voltaire, normal grief is not ‘Major’, is not ‘Depressive,’ and is not ‘Disorder.’ Grief is the normal and necessary human reaction to love and loss, not some phony disease.

All this seems perfectly clear to just about everyone in the world except the small group of people working on DSM 5. The press is now filled with scores of shocked articles stimulated by two damning editorial pieces in the Lancet and a recent prominent article in the New York Times.

The role of public defender of DSM 5 has fallen on John Oldham MD, president of the American Psychiatric Association…

Psychology Today

DSM5 in Distress

Allen Frances, MD | February 17, 2012

Lancet Rejects Grief As a Mental Disorder: Will DSM 5 Finally Drop This Terrible Idea

The Lancet is probably the most prestigious medical journal in the world. When it speaks, people listen. The New York Times is probably the most prestigious newspaper in the world. Again, when it speaks, people usually listen. The Lancet and The New York Times have both spoken on the DSM-5 foolishness of turning grief into a mental disorder. Will DSM-5 finally listen?

Here are some selected quotes from today’s wonderful Lancet editorial
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(12)60248-7/fulltext

Previous DSM editions have highlighted the need to consider, and usually exclude, bereavement before diagnosis of a major depressive disorder. In the draft version of DSM-5 , however, there is no such exclusion for bereavement, which means that feelings of deep sadness, loss, sleeplessness, crying, inability to concentrate, tiredness, and no appetite, which continue for more than 2 weeks after the death of a loved one, could be diagnosed as depression, rather than as a normal grief reaction.”

“Medicalising grief, so that treatment is legitimized routinely with antidepressants, for example, is not only dangerously simplistic, but also flawed…”

Psychology Today

DSM5 in Distress

DSM 5 Minor Neurocognitive Disorder: Let’s Wait For Accurate Biological Tests

Allen Frances, MD | February 16, 2012

Within the next 3-5 years, we will likely have biological tests to accurately diagnose the prodrome of Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Much remains to be done in standardizing these tests, determining their appropriate set points and patterns of results, and negotiating the difficult transition from research to general clinical practice. And, given the lack of effective treatment, there are legitimate concerns about the advisability of testing for the individual patient and the enormous societal expense with little tangible benefit. Despite these necessary caveats, there is no doubt that biological testing for prodromal AD will be an important milestone in the clinical application of neuroscience.

How does this impact on the DSM 5 proposal to include a Minor Neurocognitive Disorder as a presumed prodrome to AD…

Psychology Today

DSM5 in Distress

PTSD, DSM 5, and Forensic Misuse: DSM 5 would lead to overdiagnosis in legal cases.

Allen Frances, MD | February 09, 2012

In preparing DSM IV, we worked hard to avoid causing confusion in forensic settings. Realizing that lawyers read documents in their own special way, we had a panel of forensic psychiatrists go over every word to reduce the risks that DSM IV could be misused in the courts. They did an excellent job, but all of us missed one seemingly small mistake– the substitution of an ‘or’ for an ‘and’ in the paraphilia section that lead to serious misunderstandings and the questionably constitutional preventive psychiatric detention of sexual offenders.

DSM 5 is about to make a very different, less crucial, but still consequential forensic mistake. The proposed A criterion for PTSD includes the following wording…

Psychology Today

DSM5 in Distress

Documentation That DSM 5 Publication Must Be Delayed because DSM 5 is so far behind schedule

Allen Frances, MD | February 07, 2012

I wrote last week that DSM 5 is so far behind schedule it can’t possibly produce a usable document in time for its planned publication date in May 2013. My blog stimulated two interesting responses that illustrate the stark contrast between DSM 5 fantasy and DSM 5 reality. Together they document just how far behind its schedule DSM 5 has fallen and illustrate why publication must be delayed if things are to be set right.

The first email came from Suzy Chapman of https://dxrevisionwatch.wordpress.com …

also on Psychiatric Times

Registration required for access

Documentation That DSM-5 Publication Must Be Delayed

Additional coverage of DSM-5 controversies

Sidney Morning Herald

About-turn on treatment of the young

Amy Corderoy | February 20, 2012

CONCERNS about the overmedication of young people and rigid models of diagnosis have led the architect of early intervention in Australian psychiatry, Patrick McGorry, to abandon the idea pre-psychosis should be listed as a new psychiatric disorder.

The former Australian of the Year had previously accepted the inclusion of pre-psychosis – a concept he and colleagues developed – in the international diagnostic manual of mental disorders, or DSM, which is being updated this year.

Professor McGorry has been part of a team researching pre- and early-psychosis, and his work in the latter helped secure a massive $222.4 million Commonwealth funding injection for Early Psychosis Prevention and Intervention Centres across Australia…

Sidney Morning Herald

Suffer the children under new rules

Kathryn Wicks | Opinion | February 20, 2012

Canberra Times

A new chapter for psychiatrists’ bible

Amy Corderoy | February 19, 2012

Madness is being redesigned. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) will be updated this year, meaning what counts as a psychiatric disorder will change.

Frances, one of the architects of the current manual, DSM-IV, published in 1994, knows the results of his changes to the definitions of mental illness.

“We were definitely modest, conservative and non-ambitious in our approach to DSM-IV,” he says. “Yet we had three epidemics on our watch…”

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

← Older posts

Newer posts →