QuotePsychiatric diagnoses are not only scientifically invalid, they are harmful too. The language of illness implies that the roots of such emotional distress lie in abnormalities in our brain and biology, usually known as "chemical imbalances"................

But this latest edition of the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, or DSM-5, will only make a bad situation worse because it will lower many diagnostic thresholds and increase the number of people in the general population seen as having a mental illness.

    The new diagnosis of "disruptive mood dysregulation disorder" will turn childhood temper tantrums into symptoms of a mental illness
    Normal grief will become "major depressive disorder", meaning people will turn to diagnosis and prescription as a response to bereavement
    The criteria for "generalised anxiety disorder" will be significantly relaxed, making the worries of everyday life into targets for medical treatment
    Lower diagnostic thresholds will see more diagnoses of "adult attention deficit disorder", which could lead to widespread prescription of stimulant drugs
    A wide range of unfortunate human behaviours, the subject of many new year's resolutions, will become mental illnesses - excessive eating will become "binge eating disorder", and the category of "behavioural addictions" will widen significantly to include such "disorders" as "internet addiction" and "sex addiction"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-20986796

In defense of the DSM, it doesn't seem to me to be a medical psychiatric publication at all, but rather a means for insurers in the US to complete their accounts, ensuring only covered conditions are paid for.

Here in the UK, there has, over the last 35 or so years, been a rush to find simplistic ways to manage medicine and psychiatry especially.

The DSM has always been a one of those areas that are mentioned with caution, yet are too often used as a lazy source.

I am inclined to agree with you Spacial.

There seems to be a similar article in New Scientist, partly referenced to an earlier article in the same magazine, last year.

Sadly, I'm not a subscriber. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427381.300-psychiatrys-civil-war.html

I do hope this manual is not entirely discredited. The manual itself, seems to be good for it's purpose, namely to allow US insurers to decide what they will pay for. It was incompetence and lazyness by clinicians to use it for anything else.

Never-the-less, this may become am important sorty for a number of reasons. But hopefuly, it won't be negative.

What it is now is that the medical establishment (big pharma in particular) is creating diseases that don't exist. Examples of this are social anxiety disorder and shift work disorder. They prescribe medicines for such 'diseases' which are dangerous. They use humans as guinea pigs.

Quote from: gennee on January 23, 2013, 10:54:55 AM
What it is now is that the medical establishment (big pharma in particular) is creating diseases that don't exist. Examples of this are social anxiety disorder 

As someone who has suffered from social anxiety, I can assure you it is real, and the medications I took really did help. I do believe some disorders are emphasized a bit by these companies, but I don't think they make them up.