Dsm-5 Critique

The DSM-5 is a highly regarded compendium of diagnostic criteria for mental disorders. While many cognate professions have input and contribute data to the various disorder criteria, the various sources from which the changes are suggested can cause a conflict among the different professions that use it. Social work values can especially clash with the DSM-5 due to the high regard the profession has for the dignity and worth of its clients.

Debates regarding personality disorders is considered wildly controversial in the field of psychology. I personally think it is because the subject is still being studied and constantly changing. Researchers still have a lack of knowledge regarding personality disorders, and when the DSM-IV came out a lot of people were not thrilled with the classification system and changes. Many proposals were introduced before the DSM-IV was published but, they were never included in the revision. Since professionals weren't positive in the diagnosis and treatments, stating that they had “too many permutations”, they decided to leave the proposals out of the revision. Another big changed presented in the DSM-IV revision was, eliminating four previous personality

Being able to form a diagnosis properly for a client is a process that is wide-ranging and broad. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) (American Psychiatric Association [APA], 2013) supports recommendations and standards for identifying a diagnosis for a client. The procedure of diagnosing is more than skimming for symptoms in the DSM; one must assess, interview and identify issues, as well as refer to the DSM for a diagnosis.

Allen Frances was on the task force that led to the development of the DSM-IV, served as the Department Chair of Psychiatry at the University of Duke, and a notary author of numerous books and research. His experiences and education allowed him to observe and draw a conclusion that society was creating an inflation of mental health disorders that could be evaluated as normal. After his early retirement, he decided to write about those experiences, in a book called, Saving normal: An insider 's revolt against out-of-control psychiatric diagnosis, DSM-5, Big Pharma, and the medicalization of ordinary life, and bring awareness to the Diagnostic Statistical Manuel’s (2015) inflation of mental health disorders. The book focuses on the history of mental health and Frances’s perspective on what is normal and abnormal mental health disorders.

This article, published by CNN, covers a topic that was thrown into the spotlight following the release of the fourth Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or DSM IV, and has been heavily discussed as the release date of DSM V approaches. The article, which is supported by anti-DSM experts, theorizes that the medical community is over diagnosing patients with mental illnesses at an unprecedented rate. Unfortunately, the experts provide an extensive amount of bias to the article, which is clear by examining the antithesis to their arguments. Three clear examples of bias are the statements of Dr. Carroll, Kelli Montgomery, and the articles overall focus on the DSM. The bias

A. Thesis: The Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders First Edition (DSM-I), published in 1952, was one of the most significant events in psychology because it standardized the way that mental illnesses were diagnosed. B. Clarification: “Before the concept of making a universal system of diagnosing disorders, every hospital and treatment center had their own method of diagnostics.” C. Organization: Many things happened before and around the time of the publication of the first edition of the DSM. These events led to the problem of everyone using a different method of diagnosis. People all over the world were affected by this problem, so it became clear that something needed to

My textbook is yet to arrive, so yet again I had to resort this week’s video from the Moodle shell. In order to complete this assignment to it’s full potential. I’m hoping my book is here before the next reaction is due. This week’s video was over Dr. Allen Frances and his work on DSM five. Dr. Allen Frances corrected the DSM IV, and now is the brain behind the work of DSM 5. He first described the mental health services world as a mess, because people are being diagnosed as having a mental illness, but they honestly appear as if they’re performing normally. These people are also being prescribed potentially harmful medication that they don't need, so it is only causing the body harm rather than good.

Additionally, Frye assertion that revisions of the DSM (Diagnostic Statistical Manual), specifically DSM-III, DSM-III-R, and DSM-IV, have somehow contributed to the “looser” (Frye, 2015, p. 1) parameters of diagnostic criteria thereby increasing the prevalence or frequency of diagnoses. Once again, Frye generalizes the purpose of the DSM diagnostic criteria and fails to clarify that revision are a direct result of comprehensive investigation and examination of new or different findings within mental health.

An explanation of your rationale for assigning the diagnosis on the basis of the DSM

According to my research, (“Diagnostic and statistical,” 2016), “the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) is the [newest] standard classification of mental disorders used by mental health professionals in the United States” and the DSM IV-TR (Text Revision), is the version was last edited before. All DSM manuals will include a list the American Psychology Association deem a mental illness. One of the major difference between the two editions is the use/lack of use of the multiaxial or multidimensional approach to diagnosing. During the use of the DSM IV-TR, five major dimensions in the client’s life were to be considered when applying the correct diagnosis for the individual. According to an online review, the five axis that were previously used included: Clinical Syndromes, Developmental Disorders and Personality Disorders, Physical Conditions, Severity of Psychosocial Stressors, and Highest Level of Functioning (Heffner, C., 2016). Also Highlights of Changes from DSM-IV-TR to DSM-5 (2013), offers a general outline of the revisions/differences that can be seen from changing DSM-IV-TR to DSM-5, some specifics that are mentioned include changing terminology that is used. For example, “the phrase ‘general medical condition’ is replaced in DSM-5 with ‘another medical condition’ where relevant across all disorders” (“Highlights of changes”, 2013, p. 1). Additional differences that arise between the editions include the amount to symptoms that are needed for diagnostic requirement. For example, when diagnosing for schizophrenia the DSM-5 included that the individual must display two (rather than one according to the DSM-IV) Criterion A symptoms to be schizophrenic and at least one of them have to include positive symptoms such as: delusions, hallucinations, and disorganized speech (“Highlights of changes, 2013, pp. 2-3). Many other tedious changes such as these have occurred in many other areas of diagnosing as well, but that

It is believed in order to fully be able to offer aid to the client, the clinician must understand the client fully. This is important because the clinician has to first assess before diagnosing and coming up with a treatment. An assessment is “simply collecting relevant information in an effort to reach a conclusion” (97). When the client is fully assessed and the clinician fully understands, the clinician can ease into treatment. The DSM-5 is the current assessment method and “is judged by its reliability and validity (117).” The DSM-5 is focused on the reliability and validity because the previous versions were sought to be too vague and not reliable. When diagnosing a client there are certain number of symptoms that have to be met however, these symptoms have to last a certain amount of time and impede on the client's everyday life. When a client is diagnosed with a disorder there is a significant chance that they suffer another disorder. When a client is diagnosed with agoraphobia there is a chance they suffer from panic disorder as

When I consider the expansion of DSM diagnoses from just over 100 to almost 300 over the short course of forty-odd years and an even more diagnoses being added, couple with diagnoses that are broader in their application blurring the lines of what is normal and what is abnormal when considering the behaviors of the individual client behaviors, it saddens me to no end and makes me wonder if the world is moving closer to insanity as a population or is it merely the incessant whining of pharmaceutical companies who want broader acceptance of their medications. Not that I don’t understand the need for a way to classify the conditions that individuals may suffer from in their lives in a manner that is communicable amongst practitioners either

Despite growing concerns by some professions on certain aspects of DSM within the mental health community, the DSM remains to be the standard assessment tool for diagnosis process to make it easier to access patients with mental health illnesses. DSM is a professional guide, but the DSM framework is designed to be used as one of many tools for proper diagnosis and treatment. There are many disadvantage and advantages to the DSM guide however as it is now in place and fully established, DSM is useful is diagnosing patients where it would have been previously extremely difficult. The DSM profiling is in place in order to create a more effective and efficient way of establishing a correct diagnosis for patients but with every invention comes error

This new DSM-V term focuses on basing diagnosis on positive symptoms, rather than the absence of a medical explanation of somatic symptoms. “While DSM-IV was organized centrally around the concept of medically unexplained symptoms, DSM-5 criteria instead emphasize the degree to which a patient’s thoughts, feelings and behaviors about their somatic symptoms are disproportionate or excessive ” (American Psychological Association).

Members of the public place great trust in the professionals, the guides they use, and the resources they offer to help them understand their mental health illnesses. Today, the DSM is regarded as a world-renowned tool that is used in many different settings. After reading the Spiegel article, I was surprised by the historical roots of the reference so trusted by professionals. The creation of the DSM was with good intention — there was a need for consistency in the field of psychology and Robert Spitzer created something that met that need. However, as the DSM progressed in editions, it became apparent that Spitzer played a powerful role in dictating what would be acceptable to include in the DSM. While I could see how the DSM had humble beginnings