Despite the efforts of a dedicated Work Group, DSM-5 has not significantly changed the problems with PTSD that beset DSM-IV.
James Phillips, MD
With DSM-5 now approved, all discussion has been removed from the DSM-5 Web site. According to the APA, the DSM-5 leadership moved to dimensional measures as one solution to the validity problem.
A recent case has caused a flurry of opposing opinions. Not surprisingly, transgender advocacy groups have praised the judge's decision that the inmate in question has an eighth amendment right requiring the state to support and pay for sex reassignment surgery.
Both the DSM-5 Web site and Psychiatry News have recently heralded the proposed DSM-5 revision for diagnosis of personality disorders.
Regretfully, if we are to judge the progress of DSM-5 by the incoherence of a recent commentary by the Chair and Vice-chair of the DSM-5 Task Force, we have a lot to worry about.
DSM-II was published in 1968. DSM-5 will be published in 2013. How much progress have we made? I propose that we approach this question with a quiz.
The NIMH Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) project raises many questions about DSM-5 and future DSMs.
In my previous blog, The Missing Person in the DSM, I questioned whether the DSM diagnostic manual classifies psychiatric disorders or the individuals suffering from diagnostic disorders—Ms Smith’s bipolar disorder, or Ms Smith, a person with bipolar disorder.
Here’s a question. As you sit across from your patient, what or whom are you treating: Ms Smith’s bipolar illness, or Ms Smith, a person with bipolar illness? The DSM leans toward the first choice.
The DSM does and must involve both science and pragmatism. It must use the science that is available, but it must also make countless judgment calls that are not grounded in solid empirical evidence—and surely it makes sense to consider practical consequences in doing the latter.