Psychiatrists Argue Over What's Normal for New Diagnostic Book

by patgarcia | December 18, 2008 at 06:11 am
179 views | 33 Recommendations | 5 comments

Photos

Psychiatrists Argue Over What's Normal for New Diagnostic Book

Psychiatrists Argue Over What's Normal for New Diagnostic Book

see larger image

uploaded by patgarcia

The influence these changes will have in court is something to worry about in crime related situations.

How many will be diagnosed as having mental disorders for excessive shopping, compulsive eating, over-eating, anorexia, dieting and gender identity ?

The debate over gender identity to be included as a psychiatric condition is growing to be ferocious.


Is compulsive shopping a mental problem? Do children who continually recoil from sights and sounds suffer from sensory problems – or just need extra attention? Should fetishes really be considered mental disorders, as many are now?

Panels of psychiatrists are hashing out just such questions, and their answers – to be published in the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders – will have consequences for insurance reimbursement, research and individuals' psychological identity for years to come.

It seems like what's good and bad, normal an abnormal is becoming quite labile in these modern times.

“This is not cardiology or nephrology, where the basic diseases are well known,” said Edward Shorter, a leading historian of psychiatry whose latest book, “Before Prozac,” is critical of the manual. “In psychiatry, no one knows the causes of anything, so classification can be driven by all sorts of factors” – political, social and financial.

“What you have in the end,” Shorter said, “is this process of sorting the deck of symptoms into syndromes, and the outcome all depends on how the cards fall.”

recommend This comment thread is now closed
0
Paschen

Maybe so, however we may as well realize that some those conditions are real and to be taken serious and maybe judicial mistakes will with more accurate knowledge become less frequent.

0
patgarcia

I know what you mean, I do hope less mistakes are made once more information about different existing conditions is available.I was kind of thinking more about the other side of the coin, when the new labeling of certain conditions could affect people on a negative perspective to make a court verdict like a parent's custody of his children compromised by a psychiatric condition which could be by new definitions  excessive eating due to serious emotional disturbances. As well as diverse criminal situations when punishment could diminish taking a tangent road due to "psychiatric reasons."

0
Rachel Nixon

This is a very interesting issue. I do wonder about the need to "categorise" people's behaviours in this way. Also - are they "modern" diseases, or did they exist before and just not have names?

0
patgarcia

Rachel Nixon,

You have a good point there. Thanks!


0
Art_By_Alida

I have been wanting for the terminology to be changed from "disorder" to "traits" for a long time, however in order to determine a "disability" something has to be a "disorder".....maybe one day things will change and people with ADHD or ADD or WHATEVER will have more strengths and talents than "normal" people, lol...

Sorry. I had to say that.

This story was created over 3 months ago, the comment thread is now closed.

What is NowPublic?

NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.

Find out more

Crowd Power

Paschen
First Flagged at 7:43 AM, Dec 18, 2008 by Paschen
These members have powered this story:

Related Stories

Recommendations (33)

Most recently recommended by:
 

closeSign in to NowPublic

is reporting from