DSM-5 released: Media, professional and advocacy reaction: Round up #3

Post #253 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-332

For earlier responses to release of DSM-5 see Posts #252, #251 and #249

The Conversation

Two visions for understanding illness: DSM and the International Classification of Diseases
James Bradley, Lecturer in History of Medicine/Life Science at University of Melbourne, May 22, 2013

DSM-5 tells us more about psychiatry than psychiatrists
Prof, Sir Simon Wessely, Professor of Psychological Medicine at King’s College London, May 20, 2013

Under new psychiatric guidebook we might all be labelled mad
Allen Frances, Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry at Duke University, May 20, 2013

Explainer: What is the DSM?
Peter Kinderman, Professor of Clinical Psychology at University of Liverpool, May 20, 2013

Mental disorders: debunking some myths of the DSM-5
Perminder Sachdev, Scientia Professor of Neuropsychiatry, Centre for Healthy Brain Ageing (CHeBA), School of Psychiatry at University of New South Wales, April 18, 2013

Five new mental disorders you could have under DSM-5, May 20, 2013
Authors: Christopher Fairburn, Professor of Psychiatry at University of Oxford; Christopher Lane, Professor of English at Northwestern University; David Mataix-Cols, Professor and Honorary Consultant Clinical Psychologist at King’s College London; Jon Grant; Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neuroscience at University of Chicago; Karen M. von Deneen, Associate Professor at Xidian University

+++
The Dana Foundation: Psychiatric Drug Development: Diagnosing a Crisis Steven E Hyman, MD, April 02, 2013

Steven E Hyman, MD, resigned from the DSM-5 Task Force in 2012. Dr Hyman remains listed as Chair of the APA-WHO International Advisory Group for the Revision of ICD-10 Mental and Behavioural Disorders

Update: Commentary by Bernard Carroll at Health Care Renewal, April 6, 2013


Blogs Psych Central: Video NIMH’s Thomas Insel on a New Understanding of the Brain Sandra Kiume, April 2013

Video: 13:04 mins

NIMH’s Thomas Insel on a New Understanding of the Brain By Sandra Kiume

Director of the National Institute for Mental Health Thomas Insel gives a TED Talk on the new domain criteria research direction, and how an important first step is to reframe mental illness as brain disorders.

By doing so, diverse fields like psychology, cognitive science, molecular neuroscience, genetics, psychiatry, and more can work together toward a new understanding of the mind.


NIMH: Mental Disorders as Brain Disorders: Thomas Insel at TEDxCaltech, April 23, 2013

Video 15:05 mins


Psycritic: What If the NIMH Succeeds? What Then? May 11, 2013

A child psychiatrist takes a critical look at psychiatry, the news, culture, etc


Jonathan Turley: From DSM-I to DSM-5 in the Legal System: Mental Illness Issues in the Courtroom Charlton Stanley (Otteray Scribe), guest blogger, May 19


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

Includes Allen Frances video


Radio New Zealand: New reference manual issued by Psychiatric Assn May 19


Healio Psychiatric Annals: APA President-Elect: ‘Our time is now’ May 19


Los Angeles Times Review of Books: Andrew Scull on The Book of Woe: The DSM and the Unmaking of Psychiatry and Hippocrates Cried : The Decline of American Psychiatry Andrew Scull, May 19

Delusions of Progress: Psychiatry’s Diagnostic Manual

Essay length article that includes reference to the legal threats issued on behalf of American Psychiatric Publishing against Dx Revision Watch site, in December 2011.


Truth Dig: British Psychologists Find Fault With DSM-V Alexander Reed Kelly, May 16

England’s Division of Clinical Psychology, which represents more than 10,000 practitioners, has criticized the latest edition of the field’s leading diagnostic manual for its categorizing of normal behaviors—such as shyness in children and depression after the death of a loved one—as medical problems treatable with drugs…


New York Post: We’re all mad here, New psychiatry manual turns ordinary American life into mental disorders Allen Frances, MD, May 18

Millions of people who went to sleep last night thinking they were normal woke up this morning with a new mental disorder…


Medscape Medical News, Psychiatry: Use DSM-5 ‘Cautiously, If at All,’ DSM-IV Chair Advises Pam Harrison, May 17

“I believe that the American Psychiatric Association (APA)’s financial conflict of interest, generated by DSM publishing profits needed to fill its budget deficit, led to premature publication of an incompletely tested and poorly edited product,” Dr. Frances states.

“The problems associated with the DSM-5 prove that the APA should no longer hold a monopoly on psychiatric diagnosis…. The codes needed for reimbursement are available for free on the Internet.”


Spiked Online, UK: Our brains aren’t moulded by abuse Ken McLaughlin. May 16

So, is mental distress caused by faulty genes or by past experiences of childhood abuse? Maybe it’s neither.


For earlier responses to release of DSM-5 see Posts #252, #251 and #249
Advertisements

DSM-5 Round up: April #3

Post #240 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-2T2

“…Psychiatry has already reached far into our daily lives, and it’s not by virtue of the particulars of any given D.S.M. It’s because the A.P.A., a private guild, one with extensive ties to the drug industry, owns the naming rights to our pain. That so significant a public trust is in private hands, and on such questionable grounds, is what we ought to worry about.”
           The New Yorker, April 9, 2013

The Book of Woe

Gary Greenberg is a Connecticut psychotherapist, author of four books and cultivator of an impressive braid.

Greenberg’s new book The Book of Woe: The DSM and the Unmaking of Psychiatry on the politics and controversies surrounding the making of DSM is published by Blue Rider Press on May 2. Read an excerpt here.

Extracts from “Manufacturing Depression” (Harpers, May 2007), essays, articles and other writings can be read here. Media interviews and podcasts here.

Gary Greenberg blogs here.

Interview with Gary Greenberg:

The Atlantic

The Real Problems With Psychiatry

A psychotherapist contends that the DSM, psychiatry’s “bible” that defines all mental illness, is not scientific but a product of unscrupulous politics and bureaucracy.

“…take the damn thing away from them.”

Hope Reese | May 2, 2013

+++
DSM-5 Media Round up: April #3

Nature | News Feature

Nature Volume: 496, Pages: 416–418 Date published: (25 April 2013) DOI:doi:10.1038/496416a

Mental health: On the spectrum

Research suggests that mental illnesses lie along a spectrum — but the field’s latest diagnostic manual still splits them apart.

David Adam | April 24, 2013

p. 397 Editorial

+++

Globe and Mail (Canada)

When did life itself become a treatable mental disorder?

Patricia Pearson | Special to The Globe and Mail | April 27, 2013

+++

+++

Plos Open Access

Perspective doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001544

Subgrouping the Autism “Spectrum”: Reflections on DSM-5

Meng-Chuan Lai, Michael V. Lombardo, Bhismadev Chakrabarti, Simon Baron-Cohen

+++

Monitor on Psychology (Organ of the American Psychological Association)

The Next DSM

A look at the major revisions of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, due out next month.

Rebecca A Clay | April 2013

+++

Psychology Today

Saving Normal

The International Reaction to DSM-5

Allen Frances, MD | April 23, 2013

For WPA/WHO survey of global usage of ICD-10 v DSM-5 see Presentation slides: Slides 17 and 18:
Revising the ICD Definition of Intellectual Disability: Implications and Recommendations March 19, 2013
Data from World Psychiatry. 2011 Jun;10(2):118-31.
The WPA-WHO Global Survey of Psychiatrists’ Attitudes Towards Mental Disorders Classification.
Reed GM, Mendonça Correia J, Esparza P, Saxena S, Maj M. Free full paper

+++

Huffington Post Allen Frances MD
Allen Frances MD, Professor Emeritus, Duke University | April 21, 2013

+++

Slide presentation David J Kupfer

Psychiatry Update – American College of Physicians | March 2, 2013

www.acponline.org/about_acp/chapters/va/13mtg/kupfer_psychiatryupdate.pptx

File Format: Microsoft Powerpoint .pptx

(Emerging options for DSM-5 Primary Care Version from Slide 18)

++

Psychiatric News | April 19, 2013
Volume 48 Number 8 page 5-5
10.1176/appi.pn.2013.4b14
American Psychiatric Association

Professional News

Gambling Disorder to Be Included in Addictions Chapter

Mark Moran | April 19, 2013

+++

Full paper PDF:

www.luc.edu/law/media/law/students/publications/llj/pdfs/hass.pdf

Could the American Psychiatric Association Cause You Headaches? The Dangerous Interaction between the DSM-5 and Employment Law

Douglas A. Hass | March 9, 2013

+++

Scientific American

New DSM-5 Ignores Biology of Mental Illness

The latest edition of psychiatry’s standard guidebook neglects the biology of mental illness. New research may change that

Ferris Jabr | April 2013

+++

UK Times

First, the good news: you’re not having a nervous breakdown

John Naish | April 16, 2013

Behind a paywall

+++

+++

DSM-5 Round up: April #2

DSM-5 Round up: April #2

Post #232 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-2IU

Update at April 13:

Slate

Abnormal Is the New Normal

Why will half of the U.S. population have a diagnosable mental disorder?

Robin S Rosenberg | April 12, 2013

Via Patrick Landman @landman35635068

News of a forthcoming event about the “medicalization of childhood” and the consequences of DSM-5. The organizers belong to the STOP DSM international movement.

6-8 June, 2013  Palais Rouge, Buenos Aires, Agentina

and

Fundación Sociedades Complejas

La FUNDACION SOCIEDADES COMPLEJAS. PROYECTOS EN SALUD Y EDUCACION se instituye con el objeto de promover el desarrollo, la capacitación, la formación, la investigación y el perfeccionamiento continuo de todos aquellos profesionales de la salud, la educación y la cultura que trabajan con bebes, niñas…

See also guest editorial by Patrick Landman on Side Effects at Psychology Today

Why DSM-5 Concerns European Psychiatrists

A guest contributor from Paris explains why the manual’s power is misplaced

Published on March 18, 2013 by Christopher Lane, Ph.D. in Side Effects

Patrick Landman, Université de Paris VII

http://www.stop-dsm.org

+++

The New Yorker

The D.S.M. and the Nature of Disease

Gary Greenberg | April 9, 2013

…The D.S.M. has enormous impact on the public health. It determines which conditions insurers will cover, which drugs regulators will approve, which children will receive special-education services, and which criminal defendants will be able to stand trial and, in some cases, how they will be sentenced. Psychiatry has already reached far into our daily lives, and it’s not by virtue of the particulars of any given D.S.M. It’s because the A.P.A., a private guild, one with extensive ties to the drug industry, owns the naming rights to our pain. That so significant a public trust is in private hands, and on such questionable grounds, is what we ought to worry about.

Read more of this post

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

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

Cosgrove, Sheldon: 69% of DSM-5 task force members report pharmaceutical industry ties

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

Post #151 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-1ZM

“Board of Trustee Principles” here:
http://www.dsm5.org/about/Pages/BoardofTrusteePrinciples.aspx

“DSM-V Task Force and Work Group Acceptance Form” here:
Approved by BOT July2006 Amended and Approved by BOT October 2007
http://www.dsm5.org/about/Documents/DSM%20Member%20Acceptance%20Form.pdf

DSM-5 Task Force members’ bios and disclosures here: http://www.dsm5.org/MeetUs/Pages/TaskForceMembers.aspx

DSM-5 Work Group members’ bios and disclosures here: http://www.dsm5.org/MeetUs/Pages/WorkGroupMembers.aspx

(All 13 DSM-5 Work Group Chairs are members of the Task Force, which totals 29 members.)

A number of stories following publication of PLoS Medicine Essay by Linda Cosgrove and Sheldon Krimsky:

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

Full text available on PLoS site under “Open-access”

Or open PDF here

Citation: Cosgrove L, Krimsky S (2012) A Comparison of DSM-IV and DSM-5 Panel Members’ Financial Associations with Industry: A Pernicious Problem Persists. PLoS Med 9(3): e1001190. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001190

Published: March 13, 2012

 

ABC News

DSM-5 Criticized for Financial Conflicts of Interest

Katie Moisse | March 13, 2012

Controversy continues to swell around the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, better known as DSM-5. A new study suggests the 900-page bible of mental health, scheduled for publication in May 2013, is ripe with financial conflicts of interest.

The manual, published by the American Psychiatric Association, details the diagnostic criteria for each and every psychiatric disorder, many of which have pharmacological treatments. After the 1994 release of DSM-4, the APA instituted a policy requiring expert advisors to disclose drug industry ties. But the move toward transparency did little to cut down on conflicts, with nearly 70 percent of DSM-5 task force members reporting financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies – up from 57 percent for DSM-4.

“Organizations like the APA have embraced transparency too quickly as the solution,” said Lisa Cosgrove, associate professor of clinical psychology at the University of Massachusetts-Boston and lead author of the study published today in the journal PLoS Medicine. “Our data show that transparency has not changed the dynamic.”…

Read on


New Scientist

Many authors of psychiatry bible have industry ties

Peter Aldhous | March 13, 2012

Just as many authors of the new psychiatry “bible” are tied to the drugs industry as those who worked on the previous version, a study has found, despite new transparency rules…

…”Transparency alone can’t mitigate bias,” says Lisa Cosgrove Havard University of Harvard University, who along with Sheldon Krimsky of Tufts University in Medford, Massachusetts, analysed the financial disclosures of 141 members of the “work groups” drafting the manual. They found that just as many contributors – 57 per cent – had links to industry as were found in a previous study of the authors of DSM-IV and an interim revision, published in 1994 and 2000 respectively.

Cosgrove also points out that the $10,000-per-year limit on payments excludes research grants. “Nothing has really changed,” she says…

Read on

Journal reference: PLoS Medicine, DOI: 10.1371/ journal.pmed.1001190

Please note that the petition launched in October by an ad hoc committee of the Society for Humanistic Psychology (Division 32 of the American Psychological Association) referred to in this article is intended for signing by mental health professionals.


Nature | News

Industry ties remain rife on panels for psychiatry manual
Review identifies potential conflicts of interest among those drawing up DSM-5.

Heidi Ledford | March 13, 2012

Potential conflicts of interest among the physicians charged with revising a key psychiatric manual have not declined despite changes to the rules on disclosing ties to industry, says a study published today1.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is used to diagnose patients, shape research projects and guide health-insurance claims. The fifth edition of the manual, DSM-5, currently being prepared by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) in Arlington, Virginia, is scheduled for publication in May 2013. But some of the suggested revisions are proving to be contentious. In particular, some psychiatrists worry that the broader diagnostic criteria for selected psychiatric conditions would encroach into the realm of the normal, thereby pathologizing ordinary behaviour and expanding the market for drug prescriptions (see ‘Diagnostics tome comes under fire’ and ‘Mental health guide accused of overreach’)…

Read on


From TIME Magazine:

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


From last week’s New Scientist:

New Scientist

Should we rewrite the autism rule book?

Fred Volkmar and Francesca Happé | March 7, 2012
Magazine issue 2855.

AN EFFORT is under way to update the American Psychiatric Association’s diagnostic guide – the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). In particular, changes suggested for diagnosis of autism are the focus of much debate.

There are clear reasons for changing and tweaking DSM categories and criteria in the light of new research, but the impact in this case is likely to be major…

Full article available to subscribers


Human Givens

International society removes ‘schizophrenia’ from its title

March 13, 2012

A statement from the ISPS today reveals that the society has voted to remove the word ‘schizophrenia’ from its title due to the term being deemed ‘unscientific and stigmatizing’:

“Members of the International Society for the Psychological Treatments of the Schizophrenias and Other Psychoses ( www.isps.org ) have just voted, by an overwhelming majority, to change the society’s name to the International Society for Psychological and Social Approaches to Psychosis. The new logo and letterhead are to be adopted by the end of March…”

Read on

%d bloggers like this: