reply to post by KarensHoliday
Not too surprising.. BTW BUMP. Please excuse the accompanying near-rant, but I
believe it's germain to the topic.
The DSM4-TR was basically a backpedal anyway, probably from a lot of "dual-axis"
diagnoses that were in fact designations without any real clinical workup requirement.
I have genuine concerns and raise exception to diagnosis through pure interviewing--
resulting in characterizations that may or may not be valid in actual pathology. I'm not
discounting visible mannerisms or other unorthodoxies as trivial: but shouldn't be the
sole cause for certification, because the non medical doctor could with those newly
relaxed 'symptoms' indicate a condition previously requiring more comprehensive verification.
This not only seemed to irk a lot of real MDPhD's in the community; but also may have
helped the Document Commitee duck some rather uncomfortable sealed patient-based
torts... possibly a good sized class action or two. But sealed is generally politics and
the public safety: when money is involved, the latter will invariably suffer first.
Does it make you wonder if a lot of disorders were 'invented' just in time to roll out
a brand new family of medicines? "So how's the Eli Lilly Preferred doing, Doc?"
Always wondered about the regularly discovered new evil spirits the big boys regularly
cast out...with drugs or some other type of even more ineffectual processing.
Well. ineffectual except for billings anyway. It finally makes things more indecipherable
to the mainstream community, and actually therefore is counterproductive to the whole
concept of treatment. It's almost like only the doctors know what's going on sometimes..
hey are lawyers like that too???
DSM5 was supposed to be out a long time ago.. I look at it like Windows 95, it outlived
its usefulness to me when most all of us were characterized by the APA as "mentally ill"
for being mistrustful of the federal government.
Credibility? Hmmm: I think the jury's still poring over the last couple of reams.