Last Chance To Comment on Psychiatric Disorders in the DSM-5

Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


If you’ve got a pressing need to tell psychiatrists what you think about “disruptive mood dysregulation disorder” (translation: kids with temper tantrums), “night eating syndrome” (people who, well, eat a lot at night), and “callous and unemotional specifier for conduct disorder” (cold-fish types), now’s the time to do it. Friday is the deadline for public comment on the final draft of the fifth edition of the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, a volume often referred to as “the bible of psychiatry.”

Actually, ‘bible’ is an absurd term for a text that’s been rewritten—and greatly expanded—multiple times since the first edition was published in 1952. That early version was a modest effort: 132 pages with about a hundred disorders. DSM-IV, published in 1994, features almost three times the number of disorders in 886 pages—longer than my copy of The Brothers Karamazov.

I suppose one could praise the APA’s commitment to updating its views and incorporating new science, although much of that new science is funded by drug companies seeking to expand their product sales. The problem is that the rest of us—patients, clinicians, hospitals, insurers, etc.—tend to view these diagnoses as a true reflection of reality, and we allow them to govern major aspects of our lives and self-identities. But psychiatric diagnoses are often, at best, clumsy human framings of complex mood states that elude easy understanding and description.

The current revision is taking place amid much greater public and media attention. Academics and jounalists in recent years have detailed the influence of drug-company money on medical research and clinical practice. They have focused on what has been called disease-mongering—the effort to expand illness boundaries in ways that tend to increase industry profits. In the case of DSM-5, researchers have doumented widespread industry ties among panel members debating the diagnostic changes. Although the APA itself has tightened its conflict-of-interest policies for DSM panel members, critics say the changes have not gone far enough.

Controversies have also erupted over efforts to redefine common disorders, including depression, addiction, autism, sexual problems and a host of other conditions—often in ways that appeared to increase the numbers likely to be diagnosed, and therefore likely to be treated with medication. After public criticism, the APA has backed away from some controversial proposals, like “attenuated psychosis syndrome” for people deemed at risk of becoming psychotic, and “persistent complex bereavement-related disorder,” which critics said transformed ordinary grief into a pathological condition.

Public interest in the changes has been widespread. The open comment periods for two earlier drafts of DSM-V, in 2010 and 2011, generated almost 11,000 responses altogether. The volume is expected to be published next year.

We've never been very good at being conservative.

And usually, that serves us well in doing the ambitious, hard-hitting journalism that you turn to Mother Jones for. But it also means we can't afford to come up short when it comes to scratching together the funds it takes to keep our team firing on all cylinders, and the truth is, we finished our budgeting cycle on June 30 about $100,000 short of our online goal.

This is no time to come up short. It's time to fight like hell, as our namesake would tell us to do, for a democracy where minority rule cannot impose an extreme agenda, where facts matter, and where accountability has a chance at the polls and in the press. If you value our reporting and you can right now, please help us dig out of the $100,000 hole we're starting our new budgeting cycle in with an always-needed and always-appreciated donation today.

payment methods

We've never been very good at being conservative.

And usually, that serves us well in doing the ambitious, hard-hitting journalism that you turn to Mother Jones for. But it also means we can't afford to come up short when it comes to scratching together the funds it takes to keep our team firing on all cylinders, and the truth is, we finished our budgeting cycle on June 30 about $100,000 short of our online goal.

This is no time to come up short. It's time to fight like hell, as our namesake would tell us to do, for a democracy where minority rule cannot impose an extreme agenda, where facts matter, and where accountability has a chance at the polls and in the press. If you value our reporting and you can right now, please help us dig out of the $100,000 hole we're starting our new budgeting cycle in with an always-needed and always-appreciated donation today.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate