Feb 10, 2012
DSM-5: Kate Kelland vs the American Psychiatric Association
I quote it as I found it, quote by indentation, and in the order the quotes appear in the original, and write my own remarks without indentation - and please note that Ms Kelland seems to me (who is a psychologist and philosopher, by university degrees) to be quite correct in what she writes:
I say! I like it, and it's the first time I see the "tick-box" diagnosis systems criticized, by another than myself, while I also like the moniker.
But then one should be so very proud and thankful of being able to help the noble and ever well-intentioned, so very scientific shrinks and psychobabblers, to have their incomes in the top 2%.
Those psychiatrists and clinical psychologists who do not protest the DSM-5 are grossly incompetent or in it for the money. The APA is in it for the money, and quite competently so: So far, nearly everyone in medicine and health-care has been swindled into believing they work in the patients' interests. They don't, or if they do because it pays them.
Indeed, again: That's another logical consequence, and it is likely to happen if the legal possibility has been created.
Yes, or perhaps better: It is widely treated as if it has biblical stature, also by people who should not, like judges and bureaucrats, which means that it works as an enabler for psychiatric interventions, and that is what the DSM-5 is all about:
To enable psychiatrists to intervene in almost any illness, for their own financial benefit, on the pretence of doing "evidence-based medical science", while in fact they are doing artfully contrived pseudoscience to enrich themselves.
This seems - to me - a good result, and also shows that not all psychological health-workers are dishonest or incompetent, which indeed they are not. (Also, the reader should realize that quite a few psychologists and psychiatrists must have found themselves qualifying in a subject they did not really believe in, at the end of their studies.)
Indeed, but then these boxes will be uses as a Procrustean bed. Besides, another problem with the DSM-5 that should be raised in this context is that it is all intentionally vague and arbitrary, and seems to be designed so as to be most effectively abused, and without ever being refutable by its own criteria.
Yes, and let's be clear WHY this happens, rather self-evidently: To provide shrinks and psychos with money. That's what the APA is about; that's what the DSM-5 is about. And as with Catholicism in Catholic countries, it will be embraced by the authorities, by the bureaucrats and by most medical folks, because of its pretenses to be there in the name of "evidence based science", whereas it is obvious fraudulence, for anyone really qualified in medicine, psychology or philosophy of science, who also is honest.
Only the members of the DSM-5 committees and their psychiatric ilk have a financial and personal interest inventing mock diagnoses they can use to diagnose mock "mental diseases", that they can then "treat" for very real money.
True, and it is also grossly immoral and a Big Lie, and it is there because it promises to give psychiatrists much more power and much better incomes, and it WILL, alas, also help formally to decide what "help" an incompetent or lying shrink is going to have the right to claim from a patient's insurance, indeed whether or not the patients approves, for if the patient doesn't he shows "evidence-based" symptoms of refusing to accept the science of the APA, thereby "proving" - for any psychiatrist or judge who believes them - that the patient "must" be mad.
As usual, Wessely avoids being tied down to a clear and definite statement or position, and is trading innuendo.
I agree, but then the question is: What does this teach about psychiatry, psychiatrists and the APA?
In my eyes: That many are dishonest or incompetent, and are in it for the money of themselves and their colleagues - and that these same folks now have an instrument, the DSM-5, that will be irrefutable by its own criterions, and that allows psychiatrists many more grounds to make money or to lock people up.
And that is what it is really about: Money and power for psychiatrists and the APA; and not about help for the mentally ill or the confused or those in need of some medical help.
Health carers tend to be in health care to take care of their own interests, as is also human-all-too-human. (And to work for money is not, by itself, immoral: What is immoral is to pretend to knowledge one knows or should know no one has, with the end of defrauding people from money by such pretenses. Which is what witch-doctors, woo-traffickers and the members of the APA - "36.000 Physician Leaders In Mental Health" do, and very profitably also, for themselves.)
Quite so. Indeed, I am interested in the finances of it all, and believe setting up a model of financial streams, including factual information, would clarify much about what really motivates psychiatrists, on average, in practice. (In Holland there now is - for just one example - a totally fraudulent attempt by ever-lying local psychiatric professors to deny people get sleeping pills prescribed by their GPs (25 eurocents for a night of sleep) so as to give them CBT for the same purpose (175 euroos an hour for their kind shrink), on the pretext that this will be healthier to the patients "because sleeping pills are known to be not healthy": Typical psychiatric fraudulence.
Also typical is the cheek never to mention their own financial motive, or these enormous price-differences between quite effective quite cheap drugs and usually mostly ineffective but quite expensive and profitable "cognitive therapy". (*) Or indeed to mention that CBT - "Cognitive Behavorial Therapy" - is hardly effective, in this as in most applications of it, if investigated honestly and objectively, that is, not by the psychiatrists who stand ready to make money from it. For talk-therapy aka psychobabble is and ever was ineffective for most patients, but is and ever was most profitable for the shrinks and psychos offering them for money.
Probably including the fraudulent gambit I just sketched: If you can't sleep, DSM-5 diagnoses that you need CBT, which will make your kind shrink or psycho richer by 500-1500 euroos. An effective sleeping pill costs 25 eurocents, but then these patient-loving shrinks will assure you, with a very honest face, that taking sleeping pills is very bad for you. Taking 1000 euros - the equivalent of a mere 6 hours of "honest" "evidence-based" CBT - as the median, this means 4000 nights - over 11 years - of good sleep, on pills, that have the grave disadvantage to work and not to be profitable at all to psychiatrists. These folks mean so well when they offer you "to learn to sleep by CBT"!
Or more precisely, I think: Being set up intentionally so as to enable such abuse, because such abuse forces patients to go to shrinks. It is not necessarily true that the DSM-5 must be abused; it is true it can be abused, and seems to be nicely and cleverly and competently designed for precisely that purpose, including the ever-continuing doubletalk; and so as to be beyond criticism or indeed so as to be beyond rational comprehension, the last because it is irrational as science, and only rational as intentional medical fraudulence, designed to be that. (And as intentional fraud it is a lot easier to make sense of than as what it pretends to be, viz. "a diagnostic manual for" supposedly but not really "scientific diagnosing".)
See above, on the DSM-5 being set up for abuse, but not necessitating it - which also means that if the doctor or shrink doesn't like the patient or the patient's mother he can declare them both insane using the DSM-5, while if the doctor likes the patient or the patients mother (especially if pretty and willing) he may not do it.
But it is nice to see that Reuters is - still - capable of doing decent reporting, for this is a good and sensible article.
(*) To quote Multatuli, again, in my translation, about medical morality and motives in his day (the days of doctor Semmelweis, who died horribly, trying to do the best he could to bring his medical colleagues to reason, or at least to do sensible experimentation, but to no avail). I added bolding to make even medical morons see the point:
That also explains the many new diagnoses Simon Wessely pretended to be puzzled by: New "diseases" are new ways to squeeze money from ill or confused or ignorant people.
As to ME/CFS (that I prefer to call ME):
Short descriptions of the above:
1. Ten reasons why ME/CFS is a real disease by a professor of medicine of Harvard.
2. Long essay by a professor emeritus of medical chemistry about maltreatment of ME.
3. Explanation of what's happening around ME by an investigative journalist.
4. Report to Canadian Government on ME, by many medical experts.
5. Advice to psychiatrist by a psychiatrist who understands ME is an organic disease
6. English mathematical genius on one's responsibilities in the matter of one's beliefs:
7. A space- and computer-scientist takes a look at psychology.
See also: ME -Documentation and ME - Resources
The last has many files, all on my site to keep them accessible.
|home - index - summaries - top - mail|