UK Independent: Rethinking mental disorders (DSM-5)

Messages
1,575
Likes
177
MEagenda posted this to CO-CURE yesterday

UK Independent: Rethinking mental disorders (DSM-5)

[if: I thought this deserved it's own thread as I thought it a well written article and was afraid it might get buried in theDSM-5 thread. There's less than a week left for submissions.]

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...ures/rethinking-mental-disorders-1942834.html

Rethinking mental disorders

Posted by The Independent

Tuesday, 13 April 2010 at 01:36 am

Is promiscuity an illness? What about childhood tantrums? As psychiatrists
set out to redraw definitions of mental disorder, controversy is
inevitable.

By Claire Prentice

Where exactly does the difference lie between extreme human behaviour and a
psychiatric illness? The question is being asked because as a US
encyclopaedia of psychiatry is rewritten for the first time in more than a
decade, controversy is already raging about what goes into it, and what
gets thrown out.

Critics say that the revised edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders (or DSM, as it is commonly known) will lead to
an explosion of healthy Americans being prescribed powerful drugs.

Patients' rights groups are angry that it will lead to more people being
stigmatised as mentally ill. "The conditions that we grew up thinking were
in the normal spectrum of human behaviour - sadness, disappointment,
anger - are now considered a psychiatric or psychological disorder. It has
become part of a national epidemic," said Alex Beam, a newspaper columnist
and author of Gracefully Insane, a book about the history of McLean
psychiatric hospital in Massachusetts.

The controversy over the DSM, which is published by the American
Psychiatric Association (APA), shows just how political mental illness has
become in America. And with good reason. At stake is not just the mental
health of a nation, but also billions of dollars for insurance companies,
doctors, researchers and pharmaceutical companies. The most serious claim
made by critics is that psychiatrists are increasingly churning out new
syndromes at the behest of their funders in the pharmaceutical industry.

The claim is rejected by the APA, which insists that those with a vested
interest, such as drug and insurance companies, have no influence on the
process. The DSM is arguably the most influential mental health publication
on the planet. It is used by doctors, psychiatrists, nurses, researchers
and insurers all over the world.

First published in 1952, it is at the heart of mental health research,
planning, policy and treatment in the US. The definitions included in the
new edition - the first complete revision since 1994 - will determine who
gets diagnosed as mentally ill, who receives powerful drugs, who is
confined to a psychiatric institution instead of being imprisoned, and if
and how much insurance companies will pay for treatment. DSM diagnoses are
routinely used in US court cases, employment background checks and
child-custody cases. Pharmaceutical companies also use the manual as a
guide to which psychiatric conditions exist, and for which they can develop
drugs.

Proposed additions to this, the fifth edition of the manual, include:
"hypersexual disorder" for those experiencing severe problems with sexual
fantasies, urges or behaviours; "temper dysregulation with dysphoria",
which refers to children throwing acute temper tantrums; and "psychosis
risk syndrome", a condition attributed to eccentric or marginalised
teenagers. In the past, the DSM has been mocked for proposing to include
conditions such as nicotine addiction, road rage and pre-menstrual tension.

Dr William Narrow, research director of the task force working on the new
edition, DSM-V, says it will lead to more effective treatment of the
mentally ill. He said, "The revisions will help mental health professionals
to make more accurate and consistent diagnoses."

Critics include Dr Allen Frances, the editor of the previous edition of the
manual, who described the new proposals as "reckless". In an editorial in
Psychiatric Times, Dr Frances described the proposals as "a wholesale
imperial medicalisation of normality that will trivialise mental disorder
and lead to a deluge of unneeded medication treatment - a bonanza for the
pharmaceutical industry but at a huge cost to the new false-positive
'patients' caught in the excessively wide DSM-V net.''

Even small changes in wording can have serious implications. If
requirements for diagnosis are too stringent, some who need help will be
left out. If they are too loose, healthy people will receive unnecessary,
expensive and possibly harmful treatment. Dr Frances describes how his
panel inadvertently contributed to three "false epidemics": attention
deficit disorder, autism and childhood bipolar disorder. He says: "We felt
comfortable that our relatively modest proposals wouldn't cause problems,
but evidence shows that our definitions were too broad and captured many
'patients' who might have been far better off never entering the mental
health system."

The DSM contains a detailed listing of every psychiatric disorder
recognised by the US healthcare system and defines how each is to be
diagnosed. Its most recent edition, the 943-page DSM-IV, lists more than
300 separate disorders. The proposed revisions are the result of more than
a decade of work by hundreds of experts across the US.

Some observers say that the ever-widening DSM net, along with the routine
advertisement on American television and in glossy magazines of powerful
drugs to treat conditions such as attention deficit disorder and
schizophrenia, help to promote a widespread belief that many rare disorders
are more commonplace than they are. "There has been a real push back
against the DSM this time around," says Beam. "People think a lot of these
pills that are paid for by government or insurance companies aren't
necessary. There's a flood of soft money for drugs. We're awash in drug
money for these nebulous syndromes."

Many healthcare professionals say there have not been sufficient advances
in research to merit an entirely new edition. Dost ngr, clinical director
of the psychiatric disorders division at McLean Hospital, says, "We could
have lived another five or seven years without a new edition." He describes
the growing numbers of people diagnosed as mentally ill as part of a wider
"sociological trend".

Controversially, the editors of the new edition propose creating a new,
all-encompassing category which they dub "autism spectrum disorder".

High-functioning people with Asperger's disorder argue that they should not
be in the same category as those with severe autism who cannot carry out
basic day-to-day tasks such as dressing themselves.

And the category dealing with eating disorders is likely to be expanded.

Critics say the new definition of "binge eating disorder" as one eating
binge per week for three months would apply to most Americans. But the new
binge eating category has been welcomed by some specialists in the field,
who said the expanded definition should lead to better diagnosis of the
condition, more research and more treatments being covered by insurance
companies.

The proposed changes have been posted on the internet, at dsm5.org, so that
members of the public can comment during the public consultation period,
which lasts until 20 April. In May, field trials begin and are to last for
10 months. Then we will find out which way madness lies.

[Ends]


Suzy Chapman