
Up until now, the leadership of the American Psychiatric Association has stubbornly defended the indefensible DSM-5 proposal that would turn normal grief into clinical depression. APA has blithely ignored the contrary scientific evidence

Up until now, the leadership of the American Psychiatric Association has stubbornly defended the indefensible DSM-5 proposal that would turn normal grief into clinical depression. APA has blithely ignored the contrary scientific evidence

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.

My biggest concern regarding DSM-5 is that it will dramatically increase the rates of mental disorder by cheapening the currency of psychiatric diagnosis . . .The whole purpose of field-testing is to identify and correct problems in the preliminary DSM suggestions before they become set in stone as official guides to diagnostic practice.

This is the title of a disturbing commentary written by the leaders of the DSM-5 Task Force and published in a prominent psychiatric journal.

The designer of the DSM-5 Field Trials has just written a telling commentary in the American Journal of Psychiatry. She makes what I consider to be 2 basic errors that reveal the fundamental worthlessness of these Field Trials and their inability to provide any information that will be useful for DSM-5 decision making.

Accurate diagnosis is absolutely crucial in SVP hearings because the potential outcome is so consequential-involuntary incarceration in a psychiatric hospital that may well last a lifetime. In no other clinical or forensic situation does so much ride on the presence or absence of a psychiatric diagnosis.

The DSM-5 Web site has recently been revised-the term “Pedohebephilia” disappears altogether, but the concept of “Hebephilia” lives on...

ADHD is often inaccurately diagnosed and prematurely treated with medication-especially under the pressure of heavy drug company marketing to physicians and direct advertising to parents and teachers.

This blog is a follow-up to an earlier post. The great news is that there is an active public debate on DSM-5.

The users’ revolt against DSM-5 marches on and just became a much, much bigger parade.

News flash From Medscape Medical News-“APA Answers DSM-5 Critics”-a defense of DSM-5 offered by Darrel A. Regier, MD, vice-chair of the DSM-5 Task Force.

When it comes to DSM-5, experience has proven conclusively that the APA will not attend to the science, evaluate the risks, or listen to reason. A user’s revolt has become the last and only hope for derailing the worst of the DSM-5 suggestions.

Last week I challenged the American Psychiatric Association (APA) to end its silence in the face of widespread criticism and finally to mount its belated public defense of DSM-5. These are the 5 questions that cry out for straight answers.

Psychiatrists may be more reluctant than are other mental health clinicians to sign a petition questioning the safety and value of DSM-5. After all, it is the American Psychiatric Association that is sponsoring DSM-5 and there is a natural tendency to want to trust the wisdom of one’s own Association.

The DSM-5 petition is now 12 days old and has already been signed by nearly 3500 people. It can be accessed at http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/dsm5/

After all this controversy and opposition, there is one thing (and one thing only) that will save the credibility of DSM-5 and guarantee its safety--a credible process of external scientific review.

So far, opposition to DSM-5 has been expressed by at least 11 organizations.

The petition to reform DSM-5 continues to gain momentum. In its first full week, more than 2300 people have already expressed their disapproval of the DSM-5 proposals and their desire to see dramatic changes. And the numbers are growing each day.

A new CDC study based on a large survey of the general population reveals the following alarming results.

Just a few days ago, 3 divisions of the American Psychological Association posted a well crafted open letter spelling out the many risks posed by DSM-5 and inviting mental health professionals to sign a petition requesting much needed changes. You can see the letter and (if you agree with it) sign the petition at http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/dsm5/

Several divisions of the American Psychological Association have just written an open letter highly critical of DSM-5.They are inviting mental health professionals and mental health organizations to sign a petition addressed to the DSM-5 Task Force of the American Psychiatric Association. You can read the letter and sign up at http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/dsm5/. It is an extremely detailed, thoughtful, and well written statement that deserves your attention and support.

Despite its caveats and good intentions, the AAP guideline will surely invite an inappropriate glut of medication for preschoolers . . .

A recent front page story by Shari Roan in the Los Angeles Times explores the heated controversy over the DSM-5 proposal to include a Disruptive Mood Dysregulation Disorder (DMDD) in DSM-5. I very much oppose the inclusion of this new "disorder."

Below is an editorial (with the above title) taken from the newsletter of the Society of Biological Psychiatry and written by its editor Stephen M. Strakowski MD.

The misdiagnosis of rape as a mental disorder has been a forensic disaster-allowing the widespread misuse of involuntary psychiatric hospitalization to facilitate a form of questionably constitutional preventive detention. Fortunately, there is now considerable hope that this sad episode will soon come to a much needed end.