There is no magic moment when it becomes clear the world needs a new DSM. The publication dates of previous DSMs were determined by revision dates of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD). Thus, DSM-I appeared with ICD-6 in 1952; DSM-II with ICD-8 in 1968; DSM-III with ICD-9 in 1980; and DSM-IV with ICD-10 in 1994.
There is no magic moment when it becomes clear that the world needs a new edition of the DSM. With just one exception, the publication dates of all previous DSM’s were determined by the appearance of new revisions of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD). Thus, DSM-I appeared in conjunction with ICD-6 in 1952; DSM-II with ICD-8 in 1968; DSM-III with ICD-9 in 1980; and DSM-IV with ICD-10 in 1994. The lone exception was DSM-IIII-R, which appeared in 1987-out of cycle only because it was originally meant to be no more than a minor revision. The official publication date for DSM-V is May 2012. That date was picked to be consistent with an earlier, no longer correct, expectation that ICD-11 would be published in that same year.
I had intended not to reply to the silly suggestion made by the DSM-V leadership that I wrote my critique out of financial motivations. I had expected that we would be conducting a useful discourse on the concrete issues and was surprised by the unenlightening personal exchange. Unfortunately, the DSM-V leadership refuses to discuss any of the substantive questions I have raised and instead, I am told, persists in the shallow rationalization that whatever I say is about royalties.
I had intended not to reply to the silly suggestion made by the APA leadership that I wrote my critique of the DSM-V process out of financial motivations.
I have the highest respect and affection for Will Carpenter, MD, who wrote a recent response ("Criticism vs Fact: A Response To A Warning Sign on the Road to DSM-V by Allen Frances, MD," Psychiatric Times, July 7, 2009) to my earlier commentary, but we do differ sharply on the following points.
We have already gone past the midway point of the time allotted for the preparation of DSM-V. I realized that not enough has been accomplished and that most of what is being suggested is headed in a very wrong direction. Particularly troubling is the almost total lack of recognition that changes in an official manual of diagnosis can have devastating unintended consequences. Before it is too late, I feel a responsibility to help DSM-V avoid mistakes by sharing the lessons learned during the past 30 years working on the 3 previous revisions of the DSM. Perhaps my comments may help the DSM-V Task Force avoid some of the hidden landmines I think they are dancing around.
We should begin with full disclosure. As head of the DSM-IV Task Force, I established strict guidelines to ensure that changes from DSM-III-R to DSM-IV would be few and well supported by empirical data. Please keep this history in mind as you read my numerous criticisms of the current DSM-V process. It is reasonable for you to wonder whether I have an inherently conservative bias or am protecting my own DSM-IV baby. I feel sure that I am identifying grave problems in the DSM-V goals, methods, and products, but it is for the reader to judge my objectivity.
Since 1990, many states have instituted sexually violent predator (SVP) or sexually dangerous person (SDP) civil commitment statutes that seek to identify the small group of extremely dangerous incarcerated sexual offenders who would present a threat to public safety if released from custody.
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. Fierce opposition has provoked two editorials in Lancet, a front page New York Times story, and incredulous articles in more than 100 journals around the world.