Allen Frances, MD

For the first time in its history, DSM-5 has shown some flexibility and capacity to correct itself. Hopefully, this is just the beginning of what will turn out to be a number of other necessary DSM-5 retreats.

An excellent study has killed two birds with one stone. It is a clear caution against the DSM-5 proposal for a psychosis risk syndrome and it should temper enthusiasm for rushing ahead with "ultra high risk" prevention programs.

My experience indicates that the SVP laws are being implemented in a highly arbitrary and idiosyncratic fashion with judges and juries easily confused by misleading expert testimony.

The diagnostic boundary between Major Depressive Disorder and Bipolar II Disorder is one of the most difficult and also one of the most important in psychiatry.

According to this week’s Time Magazine, the American Psychiatric Association has just recruited a new public relations spokesman who previously worked at the Department of Defense.

Of all the misconceived DSM-5 suggestions, the one touching the rawest public nerve is the proposed medicalization of normal grief into a mental disorder.

This letter was sent to the APA Trustees and to the DSM-5 Task Force on February 12, 2012, under the title, “Heads Up And Recommendations.”

Until yesterday, there were only 2 reasons to stick with the projected date of DSM-5 publication (May 2013). The first just dropped out.

My recent blog stimulated 2 interesting responses that illustrate the stark contrast between DSM-5 fantasy and DSM-5 reality. Together they document why publication must be delayed if DSM-5 is to be set right.

My three criticisms of DSM-5 have been: (1) risky suggestions; (2) bad writing; and (3) poor planning and disorganization.