NIMH abandons the DSM-V

Post Reply New Topic

From what I'm seeing on some of the anti-psychiatry boards, Insel is trying to push his own agenda on what constitutes "mental illness."

Interesting.....could you provide examples of what the allegeded "agenda" is?

Please feel free to PM me if it should'nt be on the public boards.

As usual, with psychiatry, and mental health, they have no idea what they are talking about, since no one knows how the mind actually works.

There is no secret info into this, but it is not so known as it should be to those who are not scientists. Insel push the biomedical model; the model needed for effective pharmacological research, genetical research and in last instance a cure for all conditions in a classification. The critics against the biomedical approach has a focus on the fact that positive aspects of a condition would be deemed as a medical failure as well, to be cured either with pharmacological medications or through genetic screening and birth control. In addition to being an economical reasonable approach, the biomedical model is also an expression of the philosophical roots of reductive physicalism. A good text (and a bit comprehensive) on this issue is:

Thornton, T. (2007). Reductionism/Antireductionism. In Jennifer Radden (Ed.), The Philosophy of Psychiatry: A Companion. (p. 191-205). New York: Oxford University Press.

I have to admit that I did not follow the quoted post. What does the "biomedical model" do that is different than any other model?

The brain is not some magical black box. The way it works has everything to do with the structure and condition of the brain.

It assumes that mental disorders are physical in nature and can be reduced to a medical disease by means of biology.

The classification of mental disorders is not scientifical today, but it may become so by many means wherease the biomedical model is only one of them. In addition to today's "bunch-of-symptoms" model; where all which lie as a foundation for a mental disorder is the observation of similar symptoms in a statistical significant population, a scientifical classification should be able to show and explain how these "bunch-of-symptoms" share the symptoms and how this has evolved. The biomedical model does this through researching common biological and/or neurological base for the symptoms of a disorder.

In that case one must be very careful of what one considers a "mental disorder". In the Soviet Union, having contrary political opinions was consider a symptom of psychosis and those with this "disorder" where "treated" in government mental hospitals.

It is enough to chill one's blood.

ruveyn

The NIMH has not abandoned DSM-V:

http://www.nimh.nih.gov/news/science-news/2013/dsm-5-and-rdoc-shared-interests.shtml

I have always had cognitive dissonance over the APA voting for diagnosis. And, If cognitive differences, mental conditions, disorders, and/or illnesses were like a house fire, cause and origin investigation would not help the displaced home owner get her or his home back or learn to live in a different house. My point being, etiology begs the question, okay and what now do I do? So, no matter how the diagnostic pie is sliced, mental health consumers will always deserve more. The biomedical model will not lead to magic pill and cognitive therapies will not adequately compensate for a missing but needed medical treatment. My continuing ADHD experience and observation of my mother's severe affective and personality disorders taught me that much. As Deng Xiaoping purportedly said, "It doesn't matter if a cat is black or white, so long as it catches mice."

Another article:

"The Problem With Psychiatry, the ‘DSM,’ and the Way We Study Mental Illness."
"Psychiatry is under attack for not being scientific enough, but the real problem is its blindness to culture. When it comes to mental illness, we wear the disorders that come off the rack."
By Ethan Watters (June 3, 2013)
http://www.psmag.com/health/real-proble ... ess-58843/

That is a picture of a man going through a tax audit.

ruveyn