DSM-V! The World Is Crumbling!

:panic: Everybody freak the fuck out because DSM-V is being released this month by the APA. They cleaned some things, but they basically just added a bunch of useless and already subtyped and diagnosable "disorders." For example, preferring one parent to another (whatever the reason), having temper tantrums more than once a week, and internet addiction all are pathologized. What is wrong with this, is that each of these have a clear diagnosable root in other existing labels. Now, they are just adding specifics and making them disorders or taking things that are considered normal and adding them. Internet addiction? Cite the difference between internet addiction and drug addiction (yes, one has a biological effect i.e. withdrawal, but still). Tell me that temper problems aren't just general personality disorders, or not even a disorder at all. (Does anyone consider that he may have a severe case of being a little boy?). These new additions aren't even empirically researched, and if they are going to add one specific, then why not others? What about Schizophrenia With A Tendency To Hallucinate Blue Unicorns Disorder? Or what if they added Gets Sad On Tusdays Syndrome? They are completely unsubstantiated and are overall very useless. They also broadened symptoms so that normal people can easily be misdiagnosed. Whatever happened to the unspoken rule that specifics are just labeled as a neurosis?

But luckily, NIMH came in and saved the day, by launching a decade-long project to accurately diagnose disorders using a non-symptom based order. Good thing I'll be in medical school by the time this project ends, so I don't have to deal with this DSM bullshit when I'm a psychiatrist.

Whoa, Hold on a moment - I'm not on the same train of thought. Could you please jump over to this slower train roof? It has cushions and no cookies, So you don't have to be concerned with it being the death star.

Please give yourself time to breathe here, I'm not about to call you chicken little over it (And I should look at myself in light of that comment, Considering some things I've thought lately) but whew, It appears you're worrying and has that ever been profitable to you? I've never profited by it though I know now it's not something good to do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 101Volts

Whoa, Hold on a moment - It appears you're worrying and has that ever been profitable to you? I've never profited by it though I know now it's not something good to do.

---

But...

Sounds like the same bullshit to me. I'd never refer to a psychiatrist that used symptom based diagnosis anyways.

I am not sure when it was that the diagnostic manuals got so damn politically correct, but it needed to end a long time ago. For a long time, a selfish piece of shit who doesn't care about other people was called a sociopath by the psychology community. Sociopaths had sociopathy. Now, they have "Antisocial Personality Disorder." That is some of the sugar coated nonsense ever. The diagnosis makes it sound like they just don't like being around people, when in reality they are lawyers, politicians, salesmen, business executives, and street thugs. They are social predators who generally thrive on being around other people.

Borderline Personality Disorder was defined well in DSM III-R, but then DSM IV had to come out and make it more ridiculous. The disorder used to be a pattern of instability of mood, self image, and relationships, but DSM V had to add instability of affects to that. Aren't the affects unstable because mood and self image are unstable? Are the DSM people next going to add that BPD's speech is unstable? What about the way they walk or the way they laugh? There is a whole world of clues about what is going on in a person's head. They don't have to all be listed in the diagnostic manual.

I think DSM III was plenty. I never looked at any of the manuals before that, so they might have been enough too. I think there is probably a book selling racket factor to this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Original Poster

Sounds like the same bullshit to me. I'd never refer to a psychiatrist that used symptom based diagnosis anyways.

---

When it comes to the brain, you can't really not use symptom based diagnoses because so little is understood of mental disorders. Hopefully the NIMH changes that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jabre

When it comes to the brain, you can't really not use symptom based diagnoses because so little is understood of mental disorders. Hopefully the NIMH changes that.

---

So little is understood, yet based solely on symptom diagnosis they see fit to prescribe extremely powerful and addictive drugs to children. Interesting.

ADHD medication even has amphetamines in them. That's kind of ridiculous.

I'm happy with NIMH's decision.

On the broadening of "disorder" in DSM V:

Pharms gotta farm.