Introduction and some information re: DSM-V

Post Reply New Topic

I spent some time today reading up on the formation of the DSM V, and it's pretty revealing.

Just google the subject with terms like 'transparency', 'accuracy' and/or 'reliability' added to DSM V, and you'll see that there is practically a civil war brewing in the entire field of mental health care. It seems like there is a fear of trivializing serious disorders by the diagnosing of what were once considered minor eccentricities in the past as mental health conditions - especially any oddity or unusual behavior that one can medicate, versus the need to somehow come up with ways to integrate a person with AS effectively into society...The school systems we have now are not yet stellar examples of efficiency in the area of human development.

BornThisWay,

Thank you for the information! How fascinating.

I truly hope things aren't going to be as bad as they seem. A 15-minute interview to diagnose a person? Heavy involvement by drug companies? I don't like the sound of this at all. Taking the time to find out the true state of the patient is the most important thing psychiatric doctors could be doing.

I am personally against medications, at least, I'm against medicating too frivolously. I think medications should only be prescribed as a last resort or for very severe symptoms that are dramatically impacting the patient's functioning. In my opinion, research into the effects of various medications on the autistic brain as opposed to neurotypical should be conducted as soon as possible - seeing how a lot of people on the spectrum report more side effects or seem to need less dosage. And in general, over-medication, or wrongly medicating without understanding a person's real condition, or their co-morbid conditions, can be highly dangerous not only for the person but for society. Some of those side-effects are really scary, and they are often the opposite of the intended effect. Not to mention that I've heard a few people talking of how trying different meds, or being on a "bad" one for some time, caused effects that lasted for years. Not good.

I noticed that the author of that article you linked has written a book called Shyness: How Normal Behaviour Became a Sickness. I looked into it briefly. It's absurd that the DSM should list something like "shyness" as a diagnosis.

"With unprecedented access to the American Psychiatric Association archives and previously classified memos from drug company executives, Christopher Lane unearths the disturbing truth: with little scientific justification and sometimes hilariously improbable rationales, hundreds of conditions—among them shyness—are now defined as psychiatric disorders and considered treatable with drugs. Lane shows how long-standing disagreements within the profession set the stage for these changes, and he assesses who has gained and what’s been lost in the process of medicalizing emotions." (Amazon.com)

I don't like this at all. And this is the DSM-IV. I guess it would be nice if the DSM-V actually took out some of the nonsense conditions and consolidated things. The more "normal" personality traits become unnecessarily included in diagnostic manuals, the less respect people with have for the entire thing. It certainly does trivialize the serious disorders. It also splits diagnosis to the point where a lot of the minor ones are probably better explained by something larger - if the diagnostician took the time to find out more about the patient. I seriously hope they don't just add more reasons to push drugs on people who really don't need anything... It will get to the point where, no matter what a person goes into an assessment or counselling session for, they'll be given some sort of diagnosis that requires a medication. I wish our world didn't revolve around money so much.

I'm wondering, shouldn't doctors always be avoiding lawsuits? Seems like that would be important...

Also, do you know if the DSM is mainly produced from the United States? I know it's the main thing used in Canada as well, but I think that the UK and others use something else. There is a World Health Organization thing as well.

That's really neat that your friend got to work with Dr. Leo Kanner.



Zodai,

In response to you:

No, I'm much more a book-reader than a book-writer. I've taken a couple creative writing classes and I did all right in them, but it wasn't that easy for me. I thought of myself as being a pretty good writer, but just two weeks ago I went through my old school files and found something I'd written about three years ago that I had been very proud of at the time... and, well... let's just say it read like a news report on the driving conditions of the local highway. It was embarrassingly literal. I think I have a vivid imagination. I also think I fail to properly express it in words. I've been told my characters come across cold and unfeeling, for example, either that or the story seems stereotyped, silly, and fake. All these wonderful and tragically inexpressible things are best left for the inner eye, I suppose.

I can see myself writing something non-fictional in the near future. I imagine I'd be very good at ghostwriting (writing people's autobiographies for them) or specialized history (e.g. history of a small town), or anything to do with editing, really. This is because what I like best about writing is organizing and fine-tuning information. I dream of possibly writing a semi-fictionalized autobiography or even a real fact-based one about AS - but I'm not going to count on it ever happening.

I like American Literature and Modernism. I hope to teach them someday. Specifically, I'd like to be a professor. My favourite professor once said in class that being a professor is the lot of those who can only dream of writing the works that they teach.