The debate over DSM-V has unfortunately taken an ugly turn with the APA leadership suggesting that Dr. Frances’s and my motivation for critiquing DSM-V is financial. People familiar with this controversy might recall that it all began when I asked Darrel Regier if I could look at the minutes of DSM-V Task Force meetings so that I could keep up with the ongoing process. He explained that he could not do this because of confidentiality agreements that all DSM-V participants have been required to sign. Because of my strong belief that DSM has been and should always be a completely open process, I started my effort to get APA to change its ways.
|Read Dr Frances' commentary on DSM-V and the APA's response|
I see two possible reasons for this information not being made public at this point in time, neither of which is encouraging. One possibility is that this information is already known to DSM-V leadership, but, for unclear reasons, it is not being made public, perhaps to shield themselves from criticism. A second possibility is that the DSM-V leadership does not yet know the answers to these questions. Given their plan to publish DSM-V in May 2012, if the second possibility is the case, it is inconceivable that this publication deadline could realistically be met. Whatever the case may be, serious consideration should be given to informing the public right now about the specifics of where DSM-V is going so that the process and eventual product can benefit from outside input from the field at large, as opposed to just the small groups of researchers that attend the sessions at which DSM-V presentations are being made. Furthermore, given the tight time constraints, APA should provide some rationale for trying to meet the May 2012 deadline.
|Visit Psychiatric Times' DSM-V Topic Center for the latest articles, blogs, and resources|