Oct 24, 2011 `
Varia: More on the DSM-5 etc. + More quotes
1. More on the DSM-5 etc.
If you don't know what the DSM-5 is, here is a link: On the DSM-5TM and here is a link with a lot more on it by Suzy Chapman, on one of her sites:
The etc. refers to the ICD-10 and ICD-11, which are medical classification schemes - names, categorizations, and something like definitions of diseases - by the World Health Organization, as the DSM-5 and its precursors are psychiatric classification schemes by the American Psychiatric Association.
These classification schemes are quite important, legally and medically speaking, especially for people with unexplained diseases, such as ME/CFS, but also many more, while the DSM-5, that's not yet finished, will be important to anyone who is ill or in distress and who risks being classified in DSM-terms, or derivatives from it, namely because the American Psychiatric Association, that is responsible for the DSM-5, is out to psychiatrize all manner of diseases, ailments and problems. See:
The DSM-5 will probably cause enormous amounts of completely undeserved suffering, simply because patients' problems will be misdiagnosed by the DSM; the patients will be declared thus or so mentally ill (euphemistically, but legally quite effectively); and they risk maltreatment and sectioning. It will also make a lot of money for psychiatrists and for pharmaceutical companies, for in the end that is what it is most about: Money and profits, rather than real science or patients' real interests.
There are various protests, and the latest is by the American Society for Humanistic Psychology, which you can find on Suzy Chapman's site linked above, in its full textual glory.
I have read it and indeed commented on it (in private e-mail), and on the whole I don't like it at all, except that I dislike the DSM-5 proposals even more. In any case, both the US humanistic psychologists and the US shrinks seem to be cursed with the occupational psy-disease of not being able to write clear unambiguous English.
Then again I am willing to suppose that the humanistic psychologists mean well, which is a lot more than I am willing to suppose about the psychiatrists of the APA, while it also seems to me - and I am a psychologist and philosopher - that either group does not practice or know or get an education in a real science, a small part (mostly statistics, methodology and physiology) excepted.
And that is what would be and indeed were and are my own grounds to object to the DSM-5: This is not real science, this is fraudulent bullshit. But yes, speaking the plain truth may lead to litigation, so this may be why the humanistic psychologists feel they cannot call a spade a spade.
Later in the day: My attention was drawn to this submission, that I find textually and intellectually a lot better, namely by the British Psychological Society, from June this year. It explains point by point, in decent English, also for laymen, what's wrong with the DSM-5 from the point of view of informed and concerned psychologists:
2. More quotes
Well, I improved it a bit and probably will improve it further, though I make no promises, since this all depends on my health and my mood. Here is a link for it, in my Philosophical Dictionary:
P.S. Corrections, if any are necessary, have to be made later.
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 - top - mail|