INSIDE CASTLE WON > General Forum: The Grand Hall
Proposed changes in the DSM-V
talia:
Thanks for all the links. I am slooowly muddling through as time permits.
CZBZ:
Two excellent blog posts to read:
Mind Hacks: The Draft of the new psychiatric bible is published
Neuroskeptic: DSM-V, change we can believe in?
talia:
And another great blog that I liked a lot that criticizes the proposed changes to the DSM-V.
Blog author-
James L. Knoll, IV, M.D. is the Director of Forensic Psychiatry, Associate Professor of Psychiatry at SUNY Upstate Medical University in Syracuse, NY.
DSM-"V"- for Vendetta
“There is more behind and inside of V than any of us had suspected.”
I more than likely still don't have the hang of inserting a link- if this is the case, the link is as follows;
http://wwwedgeeffect.blogspot.com/2010/02/dsm-v-for-vendetta-there-is-more-behind.html
CZBZ:
Hi Talia! I promised to link a few more articles about proposed changes in DSM-V criteria (basically eliminating the NPD diagnosis). So get on your elastic waist pants, grab a big bottle of coke, Feed your cat first and make sure there's something to eat for dinner. this is a lot of reading. ha! You may actually enjoy the arguments between psychologists in this first link. Methinks they're about as rotten at direct confrontation as most of us and yes, they are highly opinionated and self-protective. Nonetheless, the internet allows us to see things that were otherwise verboten. YAYA...so now we know the truth. Psychologists aren't gods. They're just people.
I'm still reading about the changes and nothing is set in stone, yet. The psychology Bible is still being chiseled and embellished and edited. Maybe the DSM-V is predicted to be published in a few years but if these folks can't come to an agreement, it may never get published. =msn shocked= Let's go with what we know about NPD and avoid questioning whether or not it's a clinical disorder or merely a matter of perception (or extreme!).
I continue to browse psychiatric sites and forums for further information about the proposed changes. While the DSM committee has invited people to comment, it's probably like having someone who doesn't like you much say, "Let's Do Lunch next Week!" They have no intentions of sharing lunch with you next week or even next year; but it looks good to say that, right?
LOL
Hugs!
CZ
Opening Pandora’s Box: The 19 Worst Suggestions For DSM5
By Allen Frances, MD | February 11, 2010
Dr Frances was the chair of the DSM-IV Task Force and of the department of psychiatry at Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC. He is currently professor emeritus at Duke.
"Perhaps it should occasion no surprise that a flawed process should yield a flawed product. The most fundamental problem is the poor and inconsistent writing. Admittedly, early Work Group drafts are often written imprecisely and with varying quality, but it is surprising that the DSM5 leadership has failed to edit for clarity and consistency. It would be a waste of effort, time, and money to conduct field trials before the new criteria sets receive extensive revision. The poor writing is also a bad prognostic sign, suggesting that the DSM5 text sections for the various disorders may eventually be equally inconsistent, variable in quality, and sometimes incoherent...."
A Warning Sign on the Road to DSM-V: Beware of Its Unintended Consequences
By Allen Frances, MD | June 26, 2009
Dr Frances was chair of the DSM-IV Task Force and of the department of psychiatry at Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC. He is currently professor emeritus at Duke.
For more on the DSM-V debate also visit www.newscientist.com
"...Why did we go to all this trouble in preparing DSM-IV and why should DSM-V undergo a sharp midterm correction to provide equivalent safeguards by becoming far more transparent, explicit, and conservative? I believe that the work on DSM-V has displayed the most unhappy combination of soaring ambition and weak methodology. First we will explore the excessive ambition, because it has encouraged an excessive tolerance for risk taking.
The DSM-V goal to effect a “paradigm shift” in psychiatric diagnosis is absurdly premature. Simply stated, descriptive psychiatric diagnosis does not now need and cannot support a paradigm shift. There can be no dramatic improvements in psychiatric diagnosis until we make a fundamental leap in our understanding of what causes mental disorders. The incredible recent advances in neuroscience, molecular biology, and brain imaging that have taught us so much about normal brain functioning are still not relevant to the clinical practicalities of everyday psychiatric diagnosis..."
Setting the Record Straight: A Response to Frances Commentary on DSM-V
By Alan F. Schatzberg, MD, James H. Scully Jr, MD, David J. Kupfer, MD, Darrel A. Regier, MD, MPH
| July 1, 2009
Dr Schatzberg is President of the American Psychiatric Association.
Dr Scully is Medical Director, CEO, of the American Psychiatric Association.
Dr Kupfer is Chair, DSM-V Task Force
Dr Regier is Vice Chair, DSM-V Task Force
"...Finally, Dr. Frances opened his commentary with the statement, “We should begin with full disclosure.” It is unfortunate that Dr. Frances failed to take this statement to heart when he did not disclose his continued financial interests in several publications based on DSM-IV. Only with this information could the reader make a full assessment of his critiques of a new and different DSM-V. Both Dr. Frances and Dr. Spitzer have more than a personal “pride of authorship” interest in preserving the DSM-IV and its related case book and study products. Both continue to receive royalties on DSM-IV associated products. The fact that Dr. Frances was informed at the APA Annual Meeting last month that subsequent editions of his DSM-IV associated products would cease when the new edition is finalized, should be considered when evaluating his critique and its timing."
Proposed Diagnosis
Paul Chodoff, M.D.
I would like to suggest a new diagnostic entity for DSM-V. The diagnosis is “the human condition.” Diagnostic criteria would be any combination of the following:
For children: (1) distractability, (2) being fidgety, (3) disobedience, (4) disliking school. For adults: (1) unhappiness, (2) nervousness, (3) shyness, (4) dissatisfaction with one's looks, (5) dissatisfaction with one's sexual performance, (6) getting angry, (7) playing the horses, (8) getting upset when things go wrong, (9) preferring one's own company, (10) showing off, and (11) orderliness.
The advantages of this diagnosis are that it would facilitate insurance reimbursement, dispose of the bothersome problem of comorbidity, and encourage the quest for a drug to cure the disorder of being human.
DSM V--Requiem for a Diagnosis
Written by: Prudence Gourguechon
"...What I've heard from very good sources is that Narcissistic Personality was dropped in the DSM V draft because unlike,say, Borderline Personality Disorder,which was retained, NPD hasn't been found to have construct validity. It doesn't hold together, we can't verify that there is a "there" there when we talk about it. You have to respect that argument. Can something exist that can't be shown in empirical studies to exist?
But how am I supposed to describe friends, patients, colleagues and movie characters who have a Narcissistic Personality Disorder now that the phrase is going to be axed?"
The Future of Personality Disorders in the DSM-V
Facing DSM-V by Elsa Ronningstam
CZBZ:
We must have been posting close to the same time, ha!
Thanks for the link and wow, you figured out how to embed the url in the title! It's a pain, isn't it?!!!###**!
I'm reading the blog article right now and thank you so much!
Hugs,
CZ
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version