DSM-5 released: Media, professional and advocacy reaction: Round up #2

Post #252 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-32B

For earlier responses to release of DSM-5 see Posts #251 and #249


Medpage Today, US: APA Leaders Defend New Diagnostic Guide John Gever, Deputy Managing Editor,  May 18

…DSM-5 is now on sale for $199 in hardcover and $149 in paperback. The APA has never made the DSM freely available (it is an important source of revenue) and no change in that policy is planned…A digital version is promised within a few months through a secure website and also as mobile device applications. Revisions will be more frequent and most likely would be distributed only electronically, Kupfer said.


Wall Street Journal, US: Revised Psychiatric Manual Faces Mixed Reviews Shirley Wang, May 18

The widely criticized new version of the U.S. psychiatric diagnostic manual due out faces a potentially diminished role in research, which would mark a shift for what has been considered the bible of American psychiatry for 30 years.

…Dr. Kupfer, the DSM leader, said researchers should look at the DSM as “a guide but not necessarily the only framework they should use to carry out basic science.”

“For the DSM to be considered primarily a guide for clinicians is a “dramatic backtracking from their prior position as putting themselves out there as the best basis for research,” said Geoffrey Reed, senior project officer at the World Health Organization…Most of the research funded by the NIMH and published in psychiatry journals in the past 20-plus years had to use DSM diagnostic criteria; otherwise, scientists had no hope of publishing, said Dr. Reed.


The Guardian, UK: New US manual for diagnosing mental disorders published Ian Sample, science correspondent, May 18

The fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or DSM-5, has divided medical opinion

[Ed: Note according to a WPA-WHO 2011 Survey, around 11% of practising UK psychiatrists and around 23% of practising psychiatrists surveyed globally reported using DSM-IV more than ICD-10.]

…Though not used in the UK, where doctors turn to the World Health Organisation’s International Statistical Classification of Diseases (ICD), the US manual has global influence. It defines groups of patients, and introduces new names for disorders. Those names can spread, and become the norm elsewhere. More importantly, the categories redefine the populations that are targeted by drugs companies.


The Pharmaletter, US: Europe adopting US strategies to diagnose and treat ADHD Industry article, May 16

…Although Europe trails behind the USA in terms of market revenue, ADHD therapeutics markets are expected to show strong growth, with Spain predicted to witness a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 8% over 2012-2018, beating the USA’s CAGR of 6% during the same future period. European markets have not yet neared the saturation point that ADHD therapeutics are facing in the USA, and there is an optimistic view for ambitious growth in this region.


Medpage Today, US: DSM-IV Boss Presses Attack on New Revision John Gever, Deputy Managing Editor, May 17

Includes Complimentary Source PDF: http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1688399

…Ironically, DSM-5 has come under attack from the autism community for rewriting the autism spectrum classification in ways that autism advocates have feared will disqualify many children from receiving autism diagnoses — a controversy that Frances did not address…But he did suggest that the DSM in general has become too important after a very modest beginning in the 1950s.

“The DSM … has since acquired perhaps too much real-world influence as the arbiter of who gets what treatment and whether it will be reimbursed; who is eligible for disability benefits, Veterans Affairs benefits, and school and mental health services; and who qualifies to receive life insurance, adopt a child, fly an airplane, or buy a gun,” Frances observed.


Biomedcentral: Patient advocacy and dsm-5 Dan J Stein and Katharine A Phillips, May 17

BMC Medicine 2013, 11:133 doi:10.1186/1741-7015-11-133

Published: 17 May 2013 Abstract (provisional). Complete article is available as free, provisional PDF here

Abstract (provisional)

The revision of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) provides a useful opportunity to revisit debates about the nature of psychiatric classification. An important debate concerns the involvement of mental health consumers in revisions of the classification. One perspective argues that psychiatric classification is a scientific process undertaken by scientific experts and that including consumers in the revision process is merely pandering to political correctness. A contrasting perspective is that psychiatric classification is a process driven by a range of different values and that the involvement of patients and patient advocates would enhance this process. Here we draw on our experiences with input from the public during the deliberations of the Obsessive Compulsive-Spectrum Disorders subworkgroup of DSM-5, to help make the argument that psychiatric classification does require reasoned debate on a range of different facts and values, and that it is appropriate for scientist experts to review their nosological recommendations in the light of rigorous consideration of patient experience and feedback.


Herald Online, PR Newswire: New Social Media Campaign Features Stories Of Individuals Who Rejected Psychiatric Association’s DSM-5

Campaign timed to coincide with rollout of American Psychiatric Association’s DSM-5, Open Paradigm Project

SAN FRANCISCO, May 18, 2013 — /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — The Open Paradigm Project, in collaboration with MadinAmerica.com, Occupy Psychiatry, and leading organizations in the movement to reform mental health care, announces a social media campaign showcasing video testimonials by individuals negatively impacted by the traditional psychiatric model, which focuses on pathology and illness rather than wellness and recovery. The launch coincides with the American Psychiatric Association’s (APA) rollout of its latest revision of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), taking place at the APA’s annual meeting in San Francisco this weekend. In light of National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) director Thomas Insel’s move away from the DSM (“lack of validity… patients deserve better”) and DSM-5 task force chair David Kupfer’s admission of an absence of biological markers of mental illness (“we’re still waiting”), these stories starkly unveil the failure of, and harm done by, the prevailing model of mental health care…


Vox, Gibraltar: Western Psychiatry in Crisis Vox Editor, May 17

DSM 5 and exclusively biological psychiatry must be completely rethought

The following is an extract of the Mental Health Europe article:

Western psychiatry is in crisis. The direction taken by the new Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM 5), due to be published later this week, has received ample criticism. Moreover, in disagreement with the American Psychiatric Association, the United States National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), the world’s largest research institute, has announced they will no longer fund projects based exclusively on DSM categories. Unfortunately, while Mental Health Europe considers the NIMH decision to be the right one, by focusing almost entirely on neuroscience and on so-called disorders of the brain, the NIMH is missing out on the critical importance of user experiences to psychiatric research and to the practice of psychiatry…

…For more information, please contact MHE Information and Communications Manager Silvana Enculescu at silvana.enculescu@mhe-sme.org. MHE Senior Policy Adviser Bob Grove and MHE Policy Officer Yves Brand will be available for interviews.

    Click link for PDF document   More harm than good – DSM 5 and exclusively biological psychiatry must be completely rethought


BBC: Mental health ‘bible’ update due May 18


Psych Central, US: DSM-5 Released: The Big Changes John M Grohol, Psy.D., May 18


Wired Science, US: A Case That Tells the Weird Tale of DSM – and Other Recommended Reading David Dobbs, May 18

For a single post that shows how weirdly and unevenly psychiatric diagnosis actually works (and fails to work) in this country, and what that means for the new DSM, get over to Maia Svalavitz’s clear-eyed account of her own five diagnoses (and the one she never got)…


Independent, UK: Comment: Despite what the DSM implies, medical intervention is not always the answer to mental health issues Frank Furedi, May 18

You don’t need to be a mental health professional to take an interest in the recently published fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders

…Recently, the British Psychological Society’s division of clinical psychology has attacked the psychiatric profession for offering a biomedical model for understanding mental distress. But its criticism was not directed at the ethos of medicalisation as such, but only at the tendency to associate mental illness with biological causes. What it offered was an alternative model of medicalisation – one where mental illness was represented as the outcome of social and psychological cause. It seems that medicalization has become so deeply entrenched that even critics of the DSM accept its premise.


OUP Blog (Oxford University Press): Clinician’s guide to DSM-5 Joel Paris, MD, May 18

…The DSM system can be described as flawed but necessary. Clinicians need to communicate to each other, and even a wrong diagnosis allows them to do so.


For earlier responses to release of DSM-5 see Posts #251 and #249
Advertisements

DSM-5 released: Media, professional and advocacy reaction: Round up #1

Post #251 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-32h

Eureka Alert: American Psychiatric Association Press Release: American Psychiatric Association releases DSM-5 May 17


Science Media Centre, UK: Press briefing: Has psychiatry gone too far? May 17

Speakers:

Prof Elizabeth Kuipers, Professor of Clinical Psychology, Head of Department of Psychology, King’s College London’s Institute of Psychiatry;
Prof David Clark, Professor of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford and Honorary Fellow of the British Psychological Society;
Prof Nick Craddock, Professor of Psychiatry, University of Cardiff and Director of the National Centre for Mental Health, Wales;
Prof David Taylor, Royal Pharmaceutical Society expert and spokesperson on mental health medicines and Editor of the Maudsley Prescribing Guidelines;
Andy Bell, Deputy Chief Executive, The Centre for Mental Health


Medscape Medical News from The American Psychiatric Association’s 2013 Annual Meeting: DSM-5: Setting the Record Straight Jeffrey A Lieberman, MD

…The NIMH’s position on the DSM and need for scientific progress in understanding the genetic and neurobiologic basis of mental disorders has not changed. The DSM is an essential guide to clinicians to facilitate accurate diagnosis and treatment. At the same time, biomedical research cannot be confined by traditional diagnostic constructs and their boundaries. Tom and I, and the APA and NIMH, are in complete agreement on this. The DSM is a valuable guide that helps clinicians in the evaluation of patients to establish an accurate diagnosis and facilitate the most effective treatment. It is designed to reflect the latest scientific knowledge and translate this into a “user-friendly” instrument for clinicians and patients…


Medscape Medical News from The American Psychiatric Association’s 2013 Annual Meeting: DSM-5 Officially Launched, But Controversy Persists Caroline Cassels, May 18

…diagnostic categories represented in the DSM-IV and the International Classification of Diseases-10 (ICD-10, containing virtually identical disorder codes) remain the contemporary consensus standard for how mental disorders are diagnosed and treated.


American Psychological Association: Practice Central Update: Nine frequently asked questions about DSM-5 and ICD-10-CM Practice Research and Policy staff, May 16

APA Practice staff answer questions about billing, determining diagnoses and more related to the two diagnostic classification systems.


Market Place, Health Care, US: How much is the DSM-5 worth? Dan Gorenstein, May 17

It’s 19 years old and it still brings in about $4-5 million a year…with 150,000 pre-orders the DSM-5 is a hot seller. We may do a second printing more quickly than we originally thought,” says Scully. At $199 dollars for the hardcover, $149 for paperback — that’s more than $20 million in sales right there.


BBC Radio 5 live: Friday 10:00, 120 mins

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01sf42v

One of the country’s leading psychologists tells this programme that the way mental health conditions are diagnosed in the UK is “deeply flawed” and too many people are being labelled with specific syndromes like post traumatic stress disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and personality disorders. Dr Lucy Johnstone, from the division of clinical psychology, says we shouldn’t be labelling behaviour as illnesses when in most cases people are just reacting in understandable ways to life experiences. Victoria speaks to Dr Johnstone and to listeners who have been diagnosed with mental health problems.

Clip 14:52: Are we too quick to diagnose mental health illnesses?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0195g8k


RCPSYCH, UK: Troubled waters Blog of the President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, Prof Sue Bailey


The Monthly, Australia: DSM-5 and the Mental Illness Make-over Prof Nick Haslam, May 2013


ABC News, Australia: Psychiatry bible receives a makeover Sophie Scott, Michelle Brown, Gillian Bennett, May 19


Daily Telegraph, Australia: New psychiatry manual, DSM5, reclassifies previously normal behaviours as illnesses Sue Dunlevy, May 18


Toronto Star, Canada: DSM-5: Controversial changes to psychiatry’s bible Nancy White, May 17


El Confidential, Madrid: El DSM-5, la nueva biblia de los psiquiatras, atacada por los psicólogos May 14

Sinc habla en exclusive con David J. Kupfer


Psychiatric News, US: Ink Meets Paper as DSM-5 Goes to Press Aaron Levin, May 17


Slate, US: The DSM-5 Is Not Crazy, Psychiatry’s new diagnoses of picking, bingeing, and tantrums sound silly, but they’re useful for me and my patients, Marla W Deibler, May 17


Ottowa Citizen, Canada: Infighting, boycotts, resignations: Psychiatry faces another crisis of confidence Sharon Kirkey, Postmedia News, May 17


Independent, UK: Doctors in dispute: What exactly is normal human behaviour? Jeremy Laurance, May 17


Japan Times: Psychiatrists under fire in mental health battle Jamie Doward, May 18


Reuters: Psychiatrists unveil their long-awaited diagnostic “bible” Sharon Begley, May 17

Science Media Centre DSM-5 press briefing: Comments from research and clinical professionals

Science Media Centre DSM-5 press briefing: Comments from research and clinical professionals

Post #141 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-1TL

On February 9, psychiatrist, Prof Nick Craddock, and psychologist, Prof Peter Kinderman, discussed the implications of proposals for the next edition of the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) at a Science Media Centre press briefing for invited journalists.

There has been significant UK and international media interest in mental health professionals’ concerns for a range of controversial proposals for DSM-5. Press coverage is being collated in this Dx Revision Watch post:

Media coverage of UK concerns over DSM-5 (Science Media Centre press briefing)

Commentaries from Allen Frances, MD, today, on Huffington Post:

Can the Press Save DSM 5 from Itself? 

“…The intense press scrutiny of DSM 5 is really just beginning. I know of at least 10 additional reporters who are preparing their work now for publication in the near future. And many of the journalists whose articles appeared during these last few weeks intend to stay on this story for the duration — at least until DSM 5 is published, and probably beyond. They understand that DSM 5 is a document of great individual and societal consequence — and that its impact and risks need a thorough public airing…”

and Christopher Lane, Ph.D. on Side Effects at Psychology Today

DSM-5 Controversy Is Now Firmly Transatlantic

Why the APA’s lower diagnostic thresholds are causing widespread concern.

“Proposed draft revisions to the DSM, which the American Psychiatric Association recently made available on its website, are stirring major controversy on both sides of the Atlantic…”  Read on

 

Science Media Centre has very kindly given permission to publish, in full, the comments provided by research and clinical professionals for use by the press:

DSM5: New psychiatry bible broadens definitions of mental illness to include normal quirks of personality

10.02.2012

Round-up comments

Tim Carey, Associate Professor at the Centre for Remote Health and Central Australian Mental Health Service, said:

“The DSM does not assist in understanding psychological distress nor in treating it effectively. It does not “carve nature at its joints” as it were. It is a collection of symptom patterns that have no underlying form or structure. It is akin to an anthology of the constellations in the night sky. While it does not assist in understanding or treating psychological distress, it has generated phenomenal revenues for the APA, expanded the market for pharmaceutical companies, assisted in promulgating and maintaining a disease and illness model of psychological suffering, and constrained the focus of research activity. Are these the activities a humane and scientific society should seek to promote?

“The authors of the DSM themselves acknowledge the inadequacy of the DSM diagnostic system.

“On page xxxi of the latest edition of the DSM it states: ‘there is no assumption that each category of mental disorder is a completely discrete entity with absolute boundaries dividing it from other mental disorders or from no mental disorder. There is also no assumption that all individuals described as having the same mental disorder are alike in all important ways’.

“So, according to the DSM authors, the boundaries demarcating ‘schizophrenia’ (for example) don’t separate ‘schizophrenia’ from ‘depression’ (or social phobia or intermittent explosive disorder or post-traumatic stress disorder or …) or (perhaps most importantly) the boundaries don’t separate ‘schizophrenia’ from ‘no schizophrenia’.

“One would have to ask: if the function of creating particular categories is not to separate these categories from each other or from their absence, what exactly are they for?”

David Pilgrim, Professor of Mental Health Policy, University of Central Lancashire, said:

“It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that DSM-5 will help the interests of the drug companies and the wrong-headed belief of some mental health professionals (mainly most psychiatrists, but sadly all too often others as well). Some patients and many relatives also gain some advantages from diagnosis some of the time because it reduces the reality of the complexity of their experiences and their responsibilities within those existential struggles.

“Madness and misery exist but they come in many shapes and sizes and so they need to be appreciated in their very particular biographical and social contexts. At the individual level this should mean replacing diagnoses with tailored formulations, and for research purposes we should be either looking at single symptoms or shared predicaments of those with mental health problems and their significant others. I worry that we risk treating the experience and conduct of people as if they are botanical specimens waiting to be identified and categorised in rigid boxes – in my opinion that would itself be a form of collective madness for all those complicit in the continuing pseudo-scientific exercise.”

Dr Felicity Callard, Senior Research Fellow, Service User Research Enterprise, Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College London, said:

“The ongoing chaos surrounding the development of DSM-5 has intensified rather than lessened fears that this project is ill-conceived and founded on a weak evidence base. People’s lives can be altered profoundly – and, we should bear in mind, sometimes ruinously – by being given a psychiatric diagnosis. In my opinion, that the architects of DSM-5 are pressing on with such a flawed framework undermines their claim that they wish to produce a DSM that is ‘useful to all health professionals, researchers and patients’.”

Dr Paul Keedwell, Honorary Consultant Psychiatrist and Clinical Lecturer in the Neurobiology of Mood Disorders, Cardiff University, said:

“New findings arising from genetics and brain imaging studies hint at biological mechanisms, and challenge the way we classify disorders: syndromes (like bipolar and unipolar depression) might merge, while others (like “the schizophrenias”) might diverge. However a few more decades will pass before we radically change our existing classifications.

“Where the proposed DSMV is particularly controversial is in its addition of more disorders, like “Apathy Syndrome” and “Disruptive Mood Dysregulation Disorder”, which suggest a worrying trend toward medicalising normal variation in behaviour.

“Every new diagnosis implies a new treatment, suiting vested interests in the health industry. Nothing should enter the final version of DSMV without sound research evidence of the need for professionals to intervene.

“Also, every mental health professional should remember that classification systems are a guide to diagnosis only: they do not necessarily map on to the complex needs of an individual in real practice, and they are definitely not a guide to treatment.”

Allen Frances, Emeritus Professor at Duke University and Chair of the DSM-4 Steering Committee, said:

“DSM 5 will radically and recklessly expand the boundaries of psychiatry by introducing many new diagnoses and lowering the thresholds for existing ones. As an unintended consequence, many millions of people will receive inaccurate diagnosis and inappropriate treatment. Costs include: the side effects and complications of unnecessary medication; the perverse misallocation of scarce mental health resources toward those who don’t really need them (and may actually be harmed) and away from those who do most desperately require help; stigma; a medicalization of normality, individual difference, and criminality; and a reduced sense of personal responsibility. The publication of DSM 5 should be delayed until it can be subjected to a rigorous and independent review, using the methods of evidence based medicine, and meant to ensure that it is both safe and scientifically sound. New diagnoses can be as dangerous as new drugs and require a much more careful and inclusive vetting than has been provided by the American Psychiatric Association. Future revisions of psychiatric diagnosis can no longer be left to the sole responsibility of just one professional organization.”

David Elkins, Professor Emeritus of Psychology, Pepperdine University, Los Angeles, and Chair of the Division 32 Task Force for DSM-5 Reform, said:

“My committee and I remain very concerned the DSM-5, as currently proposed, could result in the widespread misdiagnosis of hundreds of thousands of individuals whose behaviour is within the continuum of normal variation. If this occurs, it means these individuals will be labelled with a mental disorder for life and many will be treated with powerful psychiatric drugs that can have dangerous side effects.

“We are also alarmed that the DSM-5 Task Force seems unresponsive to the concerns of thousands of mental health professionals and dozens of mental health associations from around the world.

“My committee recently asked the DSM-5 Task Force to submit the controversial proposals for review by an outside, independent group of scientists and scholars. Our request was denied.

“My committee launched the Open Letter/Petition Website which has now gathered more than 11, 000 individual signatures and endorsements from more than 40 from mental health associations including 13 other Divisions of the American Psychological Association.”

Dr Kevin Morgan, Senior Lecturer, Department of Psychology, University of Westminster, said:

“The proposed revisions to the diagnosis of schizophrenia i.e. the elimination of subtypes and the use instead of symptom dimensions, is an example of how DSM5 may prove to be more clinically beneficial than the current version of the manual. I wait with great interest to see the final agreed set of changes.”

Til Wykes, Professor of Clinical Psychology and Rehabilitation, Institute of Psychiatry, Kings College London, said:

“The proposals in DSM 5 are likely to shrink the pool of normality to a puddle with more and more people being given a diagnosis of mental illness. This may be driven by a health care system that reimburses only if the individual being treated has a recognised diagnosis – one in the DS manual. Luckily in the UK we have the NHS which treats people on the basis of need, not if they fit a diagnostic system.

“It isn’t just a health care system that is subverted by the spreading of diagnostic labels into normality, research will also be changed. Most research studies that reach the widest readership get published in US journals which will expect these diagnostic labels to have been used.

“We shouldn’t use labels unless we are clear they have some benefit. Saying someone is at risk of a mental illness (in some categories of DSM5) puts a lot of pressure on the individual and their family. When we do not have a good enough prediction mechanism, this is too high a burden.”

Dr David Harper, Reader in Clinical Psychology, University of East London, said:

“The American Psychiatric Association’s revisions of the DSM have become as regular as updates for Microsoft Windows and about as much use. It has facilitated an increasing medicalisation of life (the number of disorders the DSM covers has increased exponentially from its first edition in 1952 to 357 in 2000) and is hugely costly (the text revision of DSM IV made $44m in revenue between 2000 and 2006). The problem is not simply the revisions proposed in DSM 5 but the idea that psychological distress matches its diagnostic categories – people’s experiences of distress cluster in an entirely different manner. This is why most people end up with more than one diagnosis, why the ‘not otherwise specified’ category is massively over-used and why ratings of agreement between psychiatrists continue to be poor. The DSM represents a massive failure of imagination: most clinicians and researchers know the system is flawed but try to convince themselves, despite the evidence, that it aids communication, research and treatment. It does not. The frustrating thing is that there are other viable alternatives – for example, a focus on homogenous experiences of distress would aid research, the use of case formulation would aid treatment. Unfortunately, the pharmaceutical industry can see little profit in either alternative and, instead, continue to swing their considerable weight behind the DSM.”

Richard Bentall, Chair of Clinical Psychology at the University of Bangor, said:

“I share the widespread concerns about the proposed revisions to the DSM diagnostic system. Like earlier editions, this version of the manual is not based on coherent research into the causes or nature of mental illness. For example, it treats ‘schizophrenia’ and ‘bipolar disorder’ as separate conditions despite evidence that this is, at best, an over-simplification. It also looks set to widen some of the diagnostic criteria, for example by removing the grief exclusion from major depression, and by expanding the range of psychotic disorders to include an ‘attenuated psychosis syndrome’ (my own research on this, in press, shows that only about 10% of people meeting the attenuated or prodromal psychosis criteria are likely to go on to develop a full-blown psychotic illness). As there is no obvious scientific added value compared to DSM-IV, and as there are some obvious risks associated with this expansion of diagnostic boundaries, one is bound to ask why there is a need for this revision, or who will benefit from it. It seems likely that the main beneficiaries will be mental health practitioners seeking to justify expanding practices, and pharmaceutical companies looking for new markets for their products.”

Dr Lucy Johnstone, Consultant Clinical Psychologist, Cwm Taf Health Board, Mid Glamorgan, South Wales, said:

“The DSM debate is all about how we understand mental distress. DSM and the proposed revisions are based on the assumption that mental distress is best understood as an illness, mainly caused by genetic or biochemical factors. It is important to realise that, with the exception of a few conditions such as dementia, there is no firm evidence to support this. On the contrary, the strongest evidence is about psychological and social factors such as trauma, loss, poverty and discrimination. In other words, even the more extreme forms of distress are ultimately a response to life problems. We need a paradigm shift in the way we understand mental health problems. DSM cannot be reformed – it is based on fundamentally wrong principles and should be abandoned.”

Dr Warren Mansell, Reader in Psychology & Clinical Psychologist, University of Manchester, said:

“Contemporary research across genetics, neuroscience, psychology and culture all point to the fact that the majority of psychiatric disorders share the same underlying processes and are treated by very similar interventions. Therefore in further emphasising different categories of mental health problems, DSM5 is heading in completely the opposite direction from the most pioneering research across the field of mental health.”

Simon Wessely, Professor of Epidemiological and Liaison Psychiatry at the Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College London:

“We need to be very careful before further broadening the boundaries of illness and disorder. Back in 1840 the Census of the United States included just one category for mental disorder. By 1917 the American Psychiatric Association recognised 59, rising to 128 in 1959, 227 in 1980, and 347 in the last revision. Do we really need all these labels? Probably not. And there is a real danger that shyness will become social phobia, bookish kids labelled as Asperger’s and so on.”

Professor Sue Bailey, President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, said:

“We recognise the importance of accurate and prompt diagnosis in psychiatry. The classification system used in NHS hospitals and referred to by UK psychiatrists is the World Health Organisation’s International Classification of Disease (ICD). Therefore, the publication of DSM-V will not directly affect diagnosis of mental illness in our health service.”

The British Psychological Society has released a statement on the DSM-5 which can be found here: BPS Statement on DSM-5

* The fifth edition of The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) will be published in May 2013 by the American Psychiatric Association.

%d bloggers like this: