Books blast new version of psychiatry's bible, the DSM

[steve2470]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/05/12/dsm-psychiatry-mental-disorders/2150819/

Psychiatry's battle-scarred bible of mental disorders — known as the DSM — continues to face a barrage of criticism even as the latest version (DSM-5) is just days away from official release.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders has been published since 1952 by the American Psychiatric Association to identify and classify mental disorders. Its last major revision was in 1994. With every revision, there are critics.

But among the legions roiling against this new version, a literary assault has now emerged. An array of books strategically timed to the new version being released at the organization's annual meeting in San Francisco (which begins Saturday) are largely aimed at its failings.

"This is not just an academic debate," says psychiatrist Allen Frances, who was chairman of the DSM-IV task force. "It's not just inside psychiatry. It has a huge impact on how lives are lived, how mental health dollars are spent and on the public health of the country."

[shenmue]

1. I will still read the new one

I work in health care. It's the industry standard. It may not be the only book that's ever relevant, but you can't get away from it.

[FarCenter]

2. Isn't the main problem that it classifies disorders without reference to the latest brain science?

It's sort of like the classification of plants and animals before phylogenetics was informed by DNA analysis.

[steve2470]

3. as some of the past contributors are saying, it's too much a collection of symptoms and not rooted..

in biology, which would include neuroscience too, yes.

[choie]

4. Correct

It is not evidence-based.