Psychiatrists and Psychologists Rebelling Against DSM

Comment

Comment by Allan on January 2, 2012 at 8:47am

James an excellent post.

It exposes what many professionals have always known. DSM is based on soft science with sometimes ill informed medication advice.

Comment by Hazlerig- www.HypnosisAustin.com on January 1, 2012 at 3:37pm

Thanks for those links, Michael.

I'm not sure that more prescriptions for drugs will really improve things. 

On the other hand, it may make it easier to differentiate us from the psychotherapists, which could be a good thing.

Comment by Michael Ellner on December 31, 2011 at 7:14pm

Great to see psychologists challenging the madness and on the other side of the coin, the emerging field of "medical" psychology" is lobbying for the right to prescribe drugs. 

Snip:

Psychologists in six states are seeking the authority to prescribe drugs, saying it would allow them to serve patients better in a mental health system stretched thin without enough physicians to meet growing demands

Unsnip

http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2011/03/07/prl20307.htm

More:

Psychiatry benefits when psychologists prescribe drugs

http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2010/04/psychiatry-benefits-psychologis...

Media dis&dat: Psychologists want right to prescribe medicine

http://media-dis-n-dat.blogspot.com/2011/03/psychologists-want-righ...

Comment by Hazlerig- www.HypnosisAustin.com on December 30, 2011 at 12:32pm

The psychiatric desire to diagnose and medicate everyone reminds me of the saying that if all your only tool is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.

Comment by Richard Nongard - NLPBoard.com on December 30, 2011 at 11:56am

The American Counseling Association, whose members are the second largest group utilizing the DSM-5 are in FULL revolt.    Here are some blogs:   http://my.counseling.org/category/dsm-5/

And this exchange between the president of the ACA and the president of the APA

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Media Contact:
Debra Bass
703-823-9800, x243
dbass@counseling.org

WORLD'S LARGEST COUNSELING ORGANIZATION OPPOSES SOME REVISIONS TO MAIN DIAGNOSTIC TOOL USED IN MENTAL HEALTH
Controversial Revisions to DSM and Lack of Open Process, Scientific Rigor Cited

Alexandria, VA (Nov. 28, 2011). . . .The American Counseling Association (ACA) expressed its alarm recently over several proposed changes to the chief tool used by mental health professionals to determine a diagnosis for their clients.

The main concerns regarding revisions to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), published by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) and due out in 2013, are insufficient scientific and validation data to back up the proposed revisions, lack of transparency in the development process, and a rewrite of the definition of mental disorder implying that all mental disorders have a biological component.

In a Nov. 8 letter from ACA President Dr. Don W. Locke to APA President Dr. John Oldham, Locke indicated that there are 120,000 licensed professional counselors in the U.S. -- the second largest group that routinely uses the DSM -- and that these professionals have expressed uncertainty about the quality and credibility of the DSM-5. (The edition of the DSM in use now is the 4th edition.)

In general, ACA is concerned that many of the proposed revisions will promote inaccurate diagnoses, diagnostic inflation, and the prescribing of unnecessary and potentially harmful medication.

One of the major areas of concern for professional counselors is the proposed definition of mental disorders. The language suggested implies that all mental disorders have a biological component. An example of mental disorders that do not necessarily have a biological basis is the severe anxiety an individual may face upon losing a job. This is an environmental issue, according to ACA, not necessarily a problem rooted in biology. The trauma faced by an earthquake victim or the grief following the death of a loved one are other examples of mental conditions that might lead an individual to seek therapy, yet would not qualify under the proposed definition emphasizing a biological basis.

"Although advances in neuroscience have greatly enhanced our understanding of psychopathology, the current science does not fully support a biological connection for all mental disorders," Locke stated in the letter.

According to Rebecca Daniel-Burke, staff liaison on the ACA DSM task force, "in general, counselors are against pathologizing or 'medicalizing' clients with diagnoses as we prefer to view clients from a strength-based approach and avoid the stigma that is often associated with mental health diagnoses."

The revision has generated controversy among many mental health professionals who not only disagree with some of the content, but also with the process and the lack of scientific rigor. For example, all work group members were required to sign confidentiality agreements prohibiting them from divulging information about the DSM-5 process, even after it is published, and the DSM-5 scientific review process is confidential and not available for public inspection. This is a violation of one of the most basic and vital tenets of science -- open access to data and/or processes for independent evaluation and critique.

ACA appoi