a reply to: pointr97
First, I'm not saying the OP is wrong, but you have to consider for bias in the sources conclusions. Just like any other internet source, in this
case a blog, the reality is not always equal to their assertion. A few facts that they get wrong . . .
- First . . . being in the DSM means nothing. It is simply a tool to help mental health workers treat people.
- This is not new. The DSM-V, while not published until 2013, was developed beginning in 1999. So, the fact that this is being used as a political
device by the authors, for an issue that wan't an issue or a man who wasn't in office 15 yrs ago, is dishonest and reeks of misinfo/propaganda. This
latest edition has nothing to do with Obamacare or Gun Control . . . that's fear mongering and a biased reporter participating in political
- Most of the new inclusions were highly debated/argued against, so many in the mental health profession don't agree with many of the new inclusions.
However, they have been debated at conferences and in papers for over 10 years and had nothing to do with the "political climate" of the time (be it
under Bush or Obama).
- This has nothing to do with Psychiatrists being a weapon, any more than the fable of you having to tell your GP, if you are a gun owner.
- Psychiatry is not Psychology and is not political or in league with any political ideology.
- The conditions that are brought up in the DSM are legit. However, no clinician or practitioner is going to look at these issues in a vacuum. The
majority of conditions that many laypeople find so "disturbing" have always been something to look at/for; however, in the past they were merely
symptoms of more traditional ailments, not of their own classification. That is where the "controversy" on these arise between people in the mental
health professions. Laypeople don't seem to understand that simply "distrusting the government" or "reading about conspiracy theories" is not going
to get you label crazy, if you are perfectly able to function and are not a harm to anyone. It is the EXTREME cases of these delusions that they are
talking about. Even then, they usually speak to a larger issue (and again why many psychologists and psychiatrists don't agree that they should be
listed as unique disorders).
- Unfortunately, those that do exhibit this in the extreme will not recognize they are sick, just like those that are depressed (not just sad) cannot
recognize they are depressed or correlate their poor behaviors with a mental issue. Conspiracist ideation, distrust of authority, etc. are very
prevalent in those with mental issues . . .and those people can be very dangerous when their delusions are threatened or supported. Such as . . .
IDK, a political motivated Arizona blogger inciting them to feel that now mental health workers are agents of an insidious government plot to strip
you of your freedoms, implying that they shouldn't get help?
- These entries were mentioned in the DSR-IV TSR, albeit some as a part of a larger entry. However, nobody equated them with gun control or Obama
back in 2000 when it was published. Back then it was the opposite . . . somehow this was a plot by Bush to bring about fascism and give the gov an
excuse to lock you in a camp and take your kids. Historical perspective can be your friend.
Hodges, as usual, goes way overboard for the purposes of generating fear. As reported psychology professor, Hodges should know full well that none of
the disorders listed exist in a vacuum and that (in the issues he brings up) they are at the extreme end of the spectrum.
However, his premise is not to educate but to scare for political purposes. And, in doing so, exaggerates and makes connections that don't exist.
I'm no fan of psychiatrists or the profession in general, outside of the need for them in hospitals for those that need supervised pharmacological
treatment (like schizophrenia). I do have a B.Sc. in Developmental Psychology, however, so I know that Hodges take is bunk.
Hodges is the worst kind of dangerous because he prays on the gullible and those that may have the very issues he is talking about, all while implying
that if the seek (or are ordered to get) help that is how the government will take your rights, or kids, or freedom.
Here is some perspective on what those in the mental health profession feel about the changes to the 5.
Psychology Today - DSM-V is not
Bible - 10 changes to ignore
This is the saddest moment in my 45 year career of studying, practicing, and teaching psychiatry. The Board of Trustees of the American
Psychiatric Association has given its final approval to a deeply flawed DSM 5 containing many changes that seem clearly unsafe and scientifically
unsound. My best advice to clinicians, to the press, and to the general public - be skeptical and don't follow DSM 5 blindly down a road likely to
lead to massive over-diagnosis and harmful over-medication. Just ignore the ten changes that make no sense.
edit on 4/29/14 by solomons path because: (no reason given)