Benedict Carey at The New York Times has done a nice job threading his way through the complexities and controversies surrounding the approval of the new edition of the psychiatrists' diagnostic manual, known as the DSM-5. In a story headlined "A Tense Compromise on Defining Disorders," he focuses on three revisions that caused particular concern among both professionals and activists. Those revisions concerned the diagnosis of depression, autism, and pediatric bipolar disorder.
He explains the changes and the significance of those changes. In each case, the revisions could mean that some people diagnosed with those disorders by the criteria in DSM-4 will no longer have them when evaluated by the criteria in the DSM-5. And, he notes, the reverse is true–some conditions not thought to be mental illnesses now will qualify. "The manual does extend the reach of psychiatry in some areas, as many critics feared it might," he writes.
I found one thing confusing. In his lede, he says the authors of the new edition "plotter a revolution" that failed. It's not clear to me what that revolution was. And he avoids recapping some of the specific controversies, including a particularly ugly incident in which the APA tried to silence a critical blogger. All the same, this is a nice summary of where things stand.
-Paul Raeburn
Leave a Reply