i used to be more sympathetic to criticisms of DSM-V, but a couple of months back i went to see a psychiatrist. who told me he didn't believe in it. fair enough. but he then diagnosed me with something and prescribed me a drug. when i asked why, he said i should trust his intuition. without DSM-V or anything similar there was no structure - nothing i could understand or question. no logic. just "intuition".
You do realize that one of the biggest criticisms of the DSM-5 is that the inter-rater reliability for many diagnoses is no better than a coin flip, right?
then fix those, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
the problem is that, at least in my case, DSM-V was replaced with an appeal to authority.
when the alternative is "ok boss, you know best" i prefer a list of symptoms where i can argue, "look, almost anyone could tick half these boxes at some point in their lives". at least i can see what's happening.
i am not saying that DSM-V is a rule book that should be followed blindly. i am not saying that it is "right", or that it carries some kind of moral weight. all that i am saying is that any communication - even dissent - needs a common vocabulary, and DSM-V can provide that.
from my outside perspective it seems that it's a tool; that the real problem is some of the doctors. discarding the tool won't improve the bad doctors, it will just make them less accountable. how is that an improvement?
doctors can do what they want anyway. getting rid of DSM-V won't remove those powers. it just removes a way to describe / discuss (and perhaps challenge) what they are doing. so you're actually making things more open to abuse.
but i'm not sure if this will help explain things, as i thought my comment above was pretty clear anyway.
Comments
You do realize that one of the biggest criticisms of the DSM-5 is that the inter-rater reliability for many diagnoses is no better than a coin flip, right?
then fix those, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
the problem is that, at least in my case, DSM-V was replaced with an appeal to authority.
when the alternative is "ok boss, you know best" i prefer a list of symptoms where i can argue, "look, almost anyone could tick half these boxes at some point in their lives". at least i can see what's happening.
i am not saying that DSM-V is a rule book that should be followed blindly. i am not saying that it is "right", or that it carries some kind of moral weight. all that i am saying is that any communication - even dissent - needs a common vocabulary, and DSM-V can provide that.
from my outside perspective it seems that it's a tool; that the real problem is some of the doctors. discarding the tool won't improve the bad doctors, it will just make them less accountable. how is that an improvement?
You seem to not realize that the DSM-5 can be used to justify treating you with a wide variety of medications.
If you feel a little down, occasionally feel a bit energized and happy, and sometimes anxious, using the DSM 5 your shrink can gladly give you:
antidepressants antipsychotics anxiety medications
and more.
doctors can do what they want anyway. getting rid of DSM-V won't remove those powers. it just removes a way to describe / discuss (and perhaps challenge) what they are doing. so you're actually making things more open to abuse.
but i'm not sure if this will help explain things, as i thought my comment above was pretty clear anyway.