Comments on: The Politics of Disease Definition: A Summer of DSM-V Controversy in Review http://blogs.law.stanford.edu/lawandbiosciences/2009/09/10/the-politics-of-disease-definition-a-summer-of-dsm-v-controversy-in-review/ Wed, 15 May 2013 21:56:51 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Law and Biosciences Blog | DSM-V Comes Out of the Closet http://blogs.law.stanford.edu/lawandbiosciences/2009/09/10/the-politics-of-disease-definition-a-summer-of-dsm-v-controversy-in-review/comment-page-1/#comment-768 Law and Biosciences Blog | DSM-V Comes Out of the Closet Tue, 23 Feb 2010 03:41:14 +0000 http://lawandbiosciences.wordpress.com/?p=649#comment-768 [...] a year of fomenting controversy, the American Psychiatric Association has taken the unprecedented step of making the draft of the [...] [...] a year of fomenting controversy, the American Psychiatric Association has taken the unprecedented step of making the draft of the [...]

]]> By: Jeremy H http://blogs.law.stanford.edu/lawandbiosciences/2009/09/10/the-politics-of-disease-definition-a-summer-of-dsm-v-controversy-in-review/comment-page-1/#comment-99 Jeremy H Mon, 19 Oct 2009 16:51:15 +0000 http://lawandbiosciences.wordpress.com/?p=649#comment-99 Interesting The idea of a diagnostic system is broadly to seek to understand a range of phenomena by classifying them. Classification systems might be personal, professional, religious, scientific, legal etcetera. The question arises as to what kind of classification system a psychiatric one is. I suspect it falls between stools. It might aspire to being scientific but it isnt there yet and I suspect will never get there. This is because the perceived neeed for its existence is not a scientific but a professional need. The profession needs classification but would probably manage without it if it wasn't for the insidious roles of industry (mainly pharmaceutical) and law in requiring diagnoses (turning opinions or hunches into "facts"). It would be a responsible movement on the part of mental health professionals and others to view the DSMs more dispassionately, avoiding privileging them as evidence and generally taking a rational and balanced view on mental health issues rather than assuming that The DSMs are an unbiased source of truth. I would not advocate ignoring them. They are thoughtfully written for the most part - but dont make out that they are more than they can possibly be that would be too much of a burden to place on their non narcissistic authors and a burden that the rest of society will have to shoulder. Interesting
The idea of a diagnostic system is broadly to seek to understand a range of phenomena by classifying them. Classification systems might be personal, professional, religious, scientific, legal etcetera. The question arises as to what kind of classification system a psychiatric one is. I suspect it falls between stools. It might aspire to being scientific but it isnt there yet and I suspect will never get there. This is because the perceived neeed for its existence is not a scientific but a professional need. The profession needs classification but would probably manage without it if it wasn’t for the insidious roles of industry (mainly pharmaceutical) and law in requiring diagnoses (turning opinions or hunches into “facts”). It would be a responsible movement on the part of mental health professionals and others to view the DSMs more dispassionately, avoiding privileging them as evidence and generally taking a rational and balanced view on mental health issues rather than assuming that The DSMs are an unbiased source of truth. I would not advocate ignoring them. They are thoughtfully written for the most part – but dont make out that they are more than they can possibly be that would be too much of a burden to place on their non narcissistic authors and a burden that the rest of society will have to shoulder.

]]> By: Neurodiversity – A National Core for Neuroethics Journal Club « Neuroethics at the Core http://blogs.law.stanford.edu/lawandbiosciences/2009/09/10/the-politics-of-disease-definition-a-summer-of-dsm-v-controversy-in-review/comment-page-1/#comment-98 Neurodiversity – A National Core for Neuroethics Journal Club « Neuroethics at the Core Thu, 17 Sep 2009 16:03:14 +0000 http://lawandbiosciences.wordpress.com/?p=649#comment-98 [...] extensively over at Mind Hacks (here, here, here and here) and most recently in an update on the Stanford Center for Law and the Biosciences Blog.  The fear that an ever increasing number of individuals might fall under future DSM criteria led [...] [...] extensively over at Mind Hacks (here, here, here and here) and most recently in an update on the Stanford Center for Law and the Biosciences Blog.  The fear that an ever increasing number of individuals might fall under future DSM criteria led [...]

]]> By: hgreely http://blogs.law.stanford.edu/lawandbiosciences/2009/09/10/the-politics-of-disease-definition-a-summer-of-dsm-v-controversy-in-review/comment-page-1/#comment-97 hgreely Tue, 15 Sep 2009 22:34:35 +0000 http://lawandbiosciences.wordpress.com/?p=649#comment-97 The DSM is incredibly important and incredibly poorly understood, certainly outside psychiatry and maybe inside. It ends up playing a big role in law, particularly in issues of social security disability, as well as in the application of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Whether this is a sensible way to classify and define mental illness is a really fascinating question that should receive more attention - though, in my own experience with committees, I'm not sure that "transparency" is always a good thing. CJ points out some good questions. Anyone out there with good answers? The DSM is incredibly important and incredibly poorly understood, certainly outside psychiatry and maybe inside. It ends up playing a big role in law, particularly in issues of social security disability, as well as in the application of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Whether this is a sensible way to classify and define mental illness is a really fascinating question that should receive more attention – though, in my own experience with committees, I’m not sure that “transparency” is always a good thing.

CJ points out some good questions. Anyone out there with good answers?

]]>