I don’t know of any book in history that’s been more widely and intensely criticized ahead of its release than the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders version 5. And more and more by medical doctors and psychiatrists themselves. Here’s one in the Georgia Straight, and another in The Walrus. Even an apologist for psychiatry in the New York Times admits he desperately wanted DSM-V to go in a completely different direction than it has, calling the field “out of touch with science”. Will any of it make a difference to the institutional hundreds-of-billions-of-dollars-annually juggernaut of the mainstream pharmaceutical company-government-psychiatry alliance, though? Maybe the biggest of the lot can bring it down: the U.S. National Institute of Mental Health, a major research funder, recently announced it would no longer support the DSM:
The weakness is its lack of validity. Unlike our definitions of ischemic heart disease, lymphoma, or AIDS, the DSM diagnoses are based on a consensus about clusters of clinical symptoms, not any objective laboratory measure.
Here’s a Psychology Today analysis of that decision.