Feb 25, 2012
DSM-5: A good plan for the DSM-5
Given yesterday's Nederlog with the title me+ME: A good report on XMRV I hardly could escape today's title:
There is - what seems to me - a good plan for the DSM-5 by dr. Rockwell whom I quoted earlier in my three-part series on Allen Frances vs the American Psychiatric Association (the link is to part 3).
In brief, and in my words, the plan is to ditch the DSM-5, if necessary with help of the US government and US politicians, in the interest of rational, moral and scientific health-care, that is liberated from the pseudoscientific bullshit the American Psychiatric Association seeks to introduce with the DSM-5, and to impose on all US citizens in search of health-care.
In case you doubt my qualifications: Check out the fine point-by-point criticism of the DSM-5 that was published last year by the British Psychological Society (BPS).
Here is the plan as presented by dr. Allen Frances in yesterday's Huffington Post, in an article entitled (link to the original in the title):
Everything so far was quoted from dr. Frances' article, where you can also find more text, including his final paragraph:
I agree and I like the plan, and I very much hope that it will succeed.
But I do not have a good estimate for its chance of success, since I am not an American and do not know much relevant good information. Then again, dr. Rockwell is quite right in maintaining or implying that the government and politicians should be much interested in and also should be much concerned about the plans of the APA to radically overhaul psychiatry and its diagnostic manuals, and replace them by untested and unverified diagnostic terminology, while also refusing - for years now - to engage in any real public rational debate with highly qualified critics such as dr. Frances, and while radically altering both the contents and the terminology of psychiatry, which has very many far going implications, for example as regards the use of a deeply flawed diagnostic manual such as the DSM-5 will be in US courts of law.
And dr. Rockwell is also quite right that it should not be difficult to convince most anyone who is interested, and who has some scientific knowledge or degree in a real science, that the DSM-5 is full of dangerous, unscientific, irrational and untested nonsense: Very few people who are not psychiatrists will fail to understand this, if given the evidence, and indeed dr. Frances himself is an important American psychiatrists with quite a few colleagues who agree with his criticisms of the DSM-5.
Then again, my own guess is that the APA will play the card they have been playing for several years now: "Only we psychiatrists are the authorities in psychiatry; only we can determine who is mad or not; only we are fit to judge the qualities of our own manuals that will have nearly biblical force in the courts: You should shut up in the face of authorities like us!"
All of this APA line of argument is fallacious, but the APA knows very well that fallacies are precisely what many people easily are deceived by, and one fallacy many people do swallow easily is that something is so, simply because supposed "medical authorities" claim it is so, while the APA will no doubt also insist that all its members have some basic degree in medicine, and therefore count as "medical doctors", and should be given the authority that goes with a medical degree at the very least. (*)
It is therefore probably helpful and sensible to get other medical people on board: The vast majority of medical doctors who did not specialize in psychiatry but specialized in some truly scientific branch of medicine, and who should and can know, if they take some time and do some reading, that the DSM-5 contains a lot of dangerous nonsense without empirical or rational foundation. (Which they also find explained by dr. Allen Frances, the chief-editor of the DSM-IV [N1], in his series in Psychology Today on the DSM-5.)
The acceptance of the DSM-5 as diagnostic manual in medicine, in courts, and by the institutions of the state will have the following consequences, among quite a few others, also unpleasant or immoral, as listed by dr. Rockwell above:
(1) it much endangers the lives, well-being, rights and personal interests of very many ill people, namely by the psychiatric DSM-5 innovation that these ill people are in fact not really ill but are "ill" with "bodily distress order" (ICD-wise) aka "somatic symptom disorder" (DSM-5 wise) [N2] and "therefore" they need psychiatric paid assistance much rather than help or research from some real medical doctor, who got a medical degree in some field of rational medical science. (**)
(2) It much endangers the practice and livelihoods of many medical doctors, namely by the psychiatric DSM-5's implication that non-psychiatric doctors are often not qualified, because the psychiatrists who edit the DSM-5 have decided that any disease that medical science at present does not know, or cannot fully explain, or has no decisive tests for, must be classified as madness, but madness with a new tricky name. such as "bodily distress disorder"/"somatic symptom disorder" [N2], and besides that psychiatrists need to be involved, for pay, of course, in very many ordinary diseases, namely "to help the patient learn to cope" and/or to take care of what the DSM-5 worthies call the "biopsychosocial" (***) dimensions of disease, that the same worthies have decided should be their field of practice.
In fact, a large part of the DSM-5 is based on this atrocious logical fallacy, that occurs again and again in various forms and disguises:
This is totally fallacious, for the following reason (among others):
But given this amount of presumptuous madness on the part of the editors of the DSM-5 and the leadership of the APA, another group of professionals that may and should be interested are U.S. comedians:
The contents and prose of the DSM-5 and the stances of the leadership of the APA are eminently fit for sketches by sharpwitted people like Jon Stewart and Bill Maher, to make fun of, that would help a lot to get the American public interested in the APA-antics, that also threaten their own personal chances for receiving any rational scientific medical treatment for what ails them, instead of the pseudoscientific fare the APA wants to reserve for and impose on them, for pay to its psychiatric members, and instead of the real medical help ill people should get.
[N1] It was kindly pointed out to me that I made a typo when I wrote that dr. Frances is "the chief-editor of the DSM-5": Of course it should be "DSM-IV". Furthermore, the full regalia of his office then amounted to this title: "Chair of the Task Force for DSM-IV". As it happens, I don't like terms like "Task Force" and "Mission" in nearly any context, since they sound like euphemisms or like military or religious cant terms, while I strongly dislike neutered euphemisms like "Chair": "Chairman" is a euphemism for "Boss" or "Leader" to start with, and its being neutered to "Chair" to save the feelings and protect the politically correct delusions of postmodern feminists just sickens me.
So... I left my term standing, as it seems to be descriptively correct and proper English; I corrected the "5" to "IV"; and I can't find the cynicism to make dr. Frances - who seems a brave and sensible man to me - into a "Chair" even if that is "correct" aka "appropriate" in this day and age. ('O tempora, o mores!')
[N2] It was kindly pointed out to me that I confused the bullshit terminologies of the DSM-5 and of the planned ICD.
I have rectified this: The argument against either bullshit term is the same, but it does make sense to correctly refer which organization tries to introduce which bullshit terms. And yes: Some of the same shrinks as push for "somatic symptom disorder" in the DSM-5 seem to push for "bodily distress disorder" in the ICD. They may even do so on purpose, in order to try to make a public show off "scientific progress" if and when the same bullshit term will be used by both DSM and ICD, or to trick or confuse folks into battles about which of two bullshit term is "best" for their brand of manipulative fraudulent "evidence-based" "science".
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 understa, but nds 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|