Sunday, May 13, 2012

DSM-V is Discussed at the American Psychiatric Association’s 165th Conference – News Round-Up: May 2012 2nd Edition « The Amazing World of Psychiatry: A Psychiatry Blog

DSM-V is Discussed at the American Psychiatric Association’s 165th Conference – News Round-Up: May 2012 2nd Edition « The Amazing World of Psychiatry: A Psychiatry Blog

The Amazing World of Psychiatry: A Psychiatry Blog

DSM-V is Discussed at the American Psychiatric Association’s 165th Conference – News Round-Up: May 2012 2nd Edition

Posted in psychiatry by Dr Justin Marley on May 12, 2012

This week there has been a large media response to the discussion of DSM-V at the American Psychiatric Association’s (APA) 165th Annual Conference (see also Appendix I). Positive Psychiatry, DSM-V and Mental Health in the older adult population have all been important topics at the APA Conference. There are several videos from the APA Conference on the Webs Health Edge Channel.
Dr James Scully, CEO of the APA gives an overview of the 165th Annual Conference in this video
The President Elect Professor Jeremy Lazarus of the American Medical Association speaks in this video about a trend towards integrated care where Medical and Psychiatric services can work together
An important issue that was addressed at the conference was the criminalisation of people with mental illnesses and this is discussed by Dr Marcia Goin and Dr Ken Rosenberg in this video
In this video, Judge Steven Leifman talks about strategies for keeping people with mental illnesses out of prison
In this video there is a discussion of some of the research that is being presented at the conference
The APA is inviting people including non-APA members to submit comments in response to the draft version of DSM-V in the 6 week period from May 2nd 2012-June 15th. This means that interested individuals or groups can become stakeholders in the revision process. Professor Kupfer has indicated that there have already been more than 11,000 comments submitted from across the world. The APA is inviting people including non-APA members to submit comments in response to the draft version of DSM-V in the 6 week period from May 2nd 2012-June 15th. This means that interested individuals or groups can become stakeholders in the revision process. Professor Kupfer has indicated that there have already been more than 11,000 comments submitted from across the world.
The latest changes in draft version include a clarification on Bereavement Reactions, field trial data supporting the categorical diagnosis of Borderline Personality Disorder, a separation of Language and Speech Disorders, Somatic Symptom Disorder as a combination of two separate disorders and changes to the Neurocognitive and Anxiety Disorders. The more recent changes have also been covered elsewhere in the media.
The New York Times has several feature articles on DSM-V. In this article there is an examination of the Addiction category with the prediction that diagnosis rates will increase with the new criteria. This article looks at the decision to remove Mixed Anxiety and Depressive Disorder as well as the Psychosis Risk Syndrome. There is also a look at the proposed changes in the Autistic Spectrum Disorders and Asperger Syndrome along with recent research findings in this area. Time Magazine covers the proposed change of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder to Post Traumatic Stress Injury in response to the perceived stigma of the word disorder. There is also coverage of the removal of Psychosis Risk Syndrome at Nature. There is also a Reuters piece on some of the changes.
In the Blogosphere there is coverage of the APA Conference at ShrinkRap while in another post, Dinah responds to a critical post about DSM-V by Paula Caplan. There is a good round-up of DSM-V related news at Shrink Things. There is also a round-up which links to more critical views of DSM-V at the AltMentalities Blog which are broadly divided into camps which are either against the concept of a Diagnostic Manual or else are critical of some of the changes advocated in DSM-V.
Appendix I – Other DSM-V Articles on the TAWOP Site
Explaining DSM-V: Interview with Professor David Kupfer, Chair of the APA DSM-V Taskforce
Another Scientific American Article on DSM-V: Is This A Step Too Far?
The Debate on DSM-V with Scientific American Continues
The Day I Got Frustrated Reading An Article About Psychiatry In Scientific American
Asperger Syndrome Could Be Removed As A Diagnosis In DSM-V
Causality and DSM-V
Appendix II – Previous DSM-V Related News Items Discussed on the TAWOP Site
The news items below are unedited and must be interpreted in terms of the subsequent developments. They help to set the context for the current discussion.
2011
DSM-V and ICD-11
The draft DSM-V criterion for a mixed depressive episode are being expanded to fit more closely with clinician’s experience and there are further details here. The new version of the World Health Organisation Classification of Disease (ICD-11) is displayed in draft version here. This is a work in progress with daily updates and it will allow people to comment from July 2011 onwards. I checked out the Mental and Behavioural Disorders section and there was just a little information there (relating to indexes for mortality) at the moment. The World Psychiatric Association have a very interesting paper on the use of the ICD-10 diagnostic system by psychiatrists. The researchers surveyed 4887 psychiatrists across the world using an internet based survey tool. The use of ICD-10 varied from 0% in Kenya and 1% in the USA to 100% in Kyrgyzstan, FYRO Macedonia and Slovenia. 71% of the psychiatrists surveyed used ICD-10 as their main diagnostic system. DSM-IV was the main diagnostic system for 23% of the psychiatrists surveyed (unweighted). 14.1% (unweighted) of the sample set ‘sometimes’ used a diagnostic system and 1.3% used the older versions of ICD-10 – ICD-9 or ICD-8 for diagnostic purposes. There is also a critical look at DSM-V at ‘Boring Old Man’ which highlights the wider debate in society.
2010
The draft changes for DSM-V have been published by the American Psychiatric Association Draft Development Team for DSM-V here. I might have overlooked something but it looks as though it is an overview of the changes being suggested for specific conditions that are being presented.
Firstly I was interested in what amounts to a wholescale reclassification of the Dementias and related conditions into Major and Minor Neurocognitive Disorders. There are some nice ideas contained within this move including the consideration that it is not only memory which needs to be affected. However I was unclear on reading the descriptions of whether it would include the subtypes as I could find no mention of this. However it would be unusual if the various subtypes of dementia for which there is an abundance of evidence were not included as subtypes within this framework as this could be considered a step backward. Additionally I couldn’t find any mention of the term Mild Cognitive Impairment (although there are some broad similarities with minor neurocognitive disorder) and the various subtypes for which there is an emerging evidence base and which is the focus of research in the hope that a better understanding could lead to prevention or amelioration of subsequent dementia.
There were very few changes here. One suggestion was to use a catatonia specified elsewhere instead of catatonia secondary to a medical disorder.
There are some big changes in the Personality Disorders. These have been reduced from 10 to 5. One of the difficulties with the current Personality Disorder types is the diagnostic overlap. A person may fulfill the criteria for more than one type of personality disorder. There are a number of changes to the criteria which should improve reduce the number of comorbid personality disorder diagnoses. A simple Likert-scale is used for quantifying personality and personality traits and the five types are Borderline Personality Disorder, Antisocial/Psychopathic Type, Avoidant Type, Obsessive-Compulsive Type and Schizotypal Type.
There are a large number of new diagnostic labels being considered for inclusion and subsuming current labels. For instance alcohol dependence syndrome may be subsumed under Alcohol-use disorder. Cannabis withdrawal is another diagnosis being introduced. The discussions around the terms ‘addiction’ and ‘dependence’ are discussed below.
There are big changes to the diagnosis of Schizophrenia with a proposal for removing subtypes including Paranoid Schizophrenia, Disorganised and Catatonic schizophrenia. Changes are being suggested in order to bring DSM-V into closer alignment with ICD-10. Proposed changes to the criteria for Schizoaffective Disorder are meant to increase reliability. ‘Psychosis Risk Syndrome‘ is being introduced (see further discussion below) and a Catatonia Specifier is being suggested. This is apparently because catatonia is ‘often not recognised’.
Mixed anxiety and depression disorder is being introduced with criteria that avoid ambiguity. This is currently included in the appendix of DSM-IV. There is a proposal to rename Dysthymic Disorder as chronic depressive disorder. There is a proposal to replace Bipolar Disorder Most Recent Episode Mixed with a mixed specifier. There are a number of changes in the criteria of Manic Episode particularly around energy levels.
The proposal is to include Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder under a new category of ‘Anxiety and Obsessive-Compulsive Spectrum Disorders’. The changes here are further discussed in the ‘PsychBrownBag’ Blog and the ‘OCD Center of Los Angeles’ Blog below.
There is a proposed amalgamation of four conditions into ‘Complex Somatic Symptom Disorder‘ but for further discussion see the ‘OCD Center of Los Angeles’ Blog below.
The proposal is to reclassify Factitious Disorders under Somatic Symptom Disorders.
Theere is a proposal to subsume Dissociative Fugue under Disssociative Amnesia. Similarly there is a proposal to remove Dissociative Trance Disorder and integrate the criteria into the diagnosis of Dissociative Identity Disorder which has a number of other proposed changes.
There are a number of new diagnoses.
A new diagnosis of Binge-Eating Disorder is recommended (for further discussion see below). In Anorexia Nervosa there is the proposal to remove the criterion of amenorrhoea whilst in Bulimia Nervosa there are some proposed changes to the frequency of binge eating episodes and the purging criteria.
There are a number of new conditiosns (a number of which subsume other conditions) including Klein-Levin Syndrome, Primary Central Sleep Apnoea, Primary Alveolar Hypoventilation, Rapid Eye Movement Behaviour Disorder and Restless Leg Syndrome amongst others. There are a number of changes to the criteria for narcolepsy including hypocretin deficiency.
There are a large number of suggested changes including the removal of Rett’s Disorder, a number of proposed changes to the Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder criteria, the inclusion of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder in school age children and Temper Dysregulation Disorder with Dysphoria which is further discussed below. Interestingly the wording for Separation-Anxiety Disorder may be changed so that it can be used with adults also. This is because there is evidence for an adult separation-anxiety disorder.
There is a proposal to include Pathological Gambling with substance-related disorders. There are proposed changes for Trichotillomania further discussed below.
There is a proposal to move Adjustment Disorder to a grouping of Trauma and Stress-Related Conditions.
Discussion of the Draft DSM-V Changes Elsewhere in the Media
Links to some of the discussions elsewhere in the media are given below.
General
The Time article looks at a number of proposed changes for DSM-V which includes the criteria for making a diagnosis of depression,use of a continuum and the case for autistic spectrum disorders, the possible grouping of non-dependence inducing substances together with dependence inducing substances in the addiction and related disorders, reducing the number of personality disorder types and making some amendments to some of the sexual disorders. Over at PsychCentral, Dr Grohol looks at a number of features of the DSM-V draft. He is encouraging of the inclusion of Binge Eating Disorder, but is critical of the criteria used in Minor Neurocognitive Disorder, Behavioural Addictions and also Temper Dysregulation Disorder which has a narrow time period fo 6 to 10 years for diagnosis. Over at the ‘Psyche Brown Bag‘ blog, Joyce Anestis comments on the restructuring of the multiaxial system as well as the arrival of a number of new disorders including ‘hoarding disorder’, ‘olfactory reference syndrome’, ‘skin picking disorder’ and ‘psychosis risk syndrome’ amongst others and is also confused by the proposed changes to the personality disorders. The Times has a look at a number of the proposed changes including ‘sluggish cognitive tempo disorder’. Web MD has an article on the changes and features an interview with Dr First who is critical of the utility of the diagnosis of ‘Psychotic Risk Syndrome’.
Dr Dan Carlat has a discussion of the proposed criteria on his blog and seems fairly positive on these (however I would just add that there are neurobiological criteria for a number of disorders in DSM-IV/DSM-V draft e.g Hypocretin Deficiency in Narcolepsy above). He notes that Temper Dysregulation Disorder is being favoured as it would avoid a diagnosis of Bipolar Disorder in children in a number of cases. He’s in favour the use of addiction in place of dependence or abuse and also the use of the concept of Binge-Eating Disorder. The New York Times has a piece featuring interviews with several psychiatrists and 230 comments at the time of writing. Integral Options cafe has links to a number of posts including those on the NPR site. An article at the NPR website examines the limits of the checklist approach and how severity might be measured when using a dimensional approach. The Economist has a piece on the history of the diagnostic criteria but also cover some of the disputes that have taken place. ‘DSM-V and ICD-11 watch’ have some interesting links as well as a brief look at suggestions for medically unexplained symptoms. Dr Finnerty has an overview of proposed changes as well as some useful links. Mind Hacks has coverage here and here. The APA have a facebook site that interested readers can join.
‘Addictions’
Stanton Peele covers the proposed use of the term addictions in this ‘The Huffington Post’ article. The ‘Join Together‘ website features an interview with Dr Charles O’Brien who is chair of the APA’s DSM substances related disorders workgroup. He explains the distinction between dependence and addiction and the consideration of including the term addiction in DSM-V. They also discuss the possibility of collecting behavioural addictions together with alcohol and other drug related disorders.
Anxiety Disorders and OCD
Tom Corboy director of the ‘OCD Center of Los Angeles’ writes about a number of proposed changes over at the ‘OCD Center of Los Angeles’ blog. Thus Corboy discusses the suggested use of an ‘Anxiety and Obsessive Compulsive Disorder Spectrum’. Corboy is also critical of the suggestion of agaraphobia without panic disorder, in favour of moving Body Dysmorphic Disorder into the ‘Anxiety and Obsessive Compulsive Disorder Spectrum’ and adding a muscle dysmorphia variant, critical of the aggregation of 4 somatoform disorders including hypochondriasis, in favour of the relabelling of trichotillomania as ‘hair pulling disorder’ and also for the inclusion of skin picking disorder.
Intellectual Disability
Over at the blog ‘Mental Incompetence and the Death Penalty‘ there is a guest post by Dr Watson. He criticises the proposed criteria for intellectual disability on the basis that there doesnt appear to be a consideration of the standard error for IQ testing meaning that there is what he describes as a ‘bright light’ cut-off point of 70 or below whereas in practice there is a group that are scored over 70 who would still be included amongst a number of criticisms.
Bipolar Disorder in Children
Over at the NPR website, there is a wider discussion of the diagnosis of Bipolar Disorder in children as well as the more recent ‘Temper Dysregulation Disorder’.
Autistic Spectrum Disorders
The Left-Brain Right-Brain blog compares the criteria in DSM-IV with those in DSM-V for autistic disorder and autistic spectrum disorders respectively and links to a number of other articles on the subject. There is another discussion of the autistic spectrum disorders proposition here. There is further coverage here and here.
Eating Disorders
Time has a piece on orthorexia which hasn’t made it into the draft version of DSM-V. There is also coverage of the proposed changes at the Ed-Bites blog (with 15 comments at the time of writing).
Dr Dan Carlat takes a further look at the DSM-V draft proposals here. Dr Charles Parker has further coverage here and also over at the Corpus Callosum blog. There is a look at grief in the draft DSM-V proposals at Psychotherapy Brown Bag.
2009
DSM-V and ICD-11
In the BJPsych there is an interesting article by Professor Michael First who writes about the potential for harmonisation of DSM-V and ICD-11 which is a widely discussed topic (First, 2009). There are a number of points of interest in the article and he notes that there are investigators involved with revisions of both systems which should help to contribute to attempts to harmonise both systems. The discussions around these systems will no doubt increase.
There was discussion recently of the diagnosis of Asperger syndrome being dropped from the next edition of the DSM and this will mean an expansion of the autism diagnostic category. This was originally discussed in a New York Times article (which requires (free) registration). The article features an interview with Dr Catherine Lord, who is one of 13 members of the working group on autism and Neurodevelopmental Disorders. The group are considering a number of amendments to the autism diagnosis including the addition of comorbidity that have been associated with the condition including disorders of attention and anxiety. However the suggestion regarding Asperger syndrome has not yet been ratified by the group. There have been a number of responses in the media. This article contains interviews with a doctor who runs a clinic, a parent of a child with Asperger’s syndrome and the president of a non-profit organisation for raising awareness of the condition. There is some information on the DSM-V process here.
DSM-V is due to appear in 2012. A twitter campaign has been started to petition for the inclusion of Depressive Personality Disorder in DSM-V. Professor Simon Baron-Cohen has argued against the removal of the Asperger Syndrome label in this New York Times article. Dr Anestis offers his views on this article and Baron-Cohen responds in this blog post.
References
Michael First. Harmonisation of ICD-11 and DSM-V: Opportunities and challenges. The British Journal of Psychiatry. 2009. 195. 382-390.
An index of the TAWOP site can be found here and here. The page contains links to all of the articles in the blog in chronological order. Twitter: You can follow ‘The Amazing World of Psychiatry’ Twitter by clicking on this link. Podcast: You can listen to this post on Odiogo by clicking on this link (there may be a small delay between publishing of the blog article and the availability of the podcast). It is available for a limited period. TAWOP Channel: You can follow the TAWOP Channel on YouTube by clicking on this link. Responses: If you have any comments, you can leave them below or alternatively e-mail justinmarley17@yahoo.co.uk. Disclaimer: The comments made here represent the opinions of the author and do not represent the profession or any body/organisation. The comments made here are not meant as a source of medical advice and those seeking medical advice are advised to consult with their own doctor. The author is not responsible for the contents of any external sites that are linked to in this blog.

Psychodynamic Psychotherapy: A Clinical Manual : The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease

Psychodynamic Psychotherapy: A Clinical Manual : The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease

Journal Info

Skip Navigation LinksHome > Current Issue > Psychodynamic Psychotherapy: A Clinical Manual
           
Journal of Nervous & Mental Disease:
May 2012 - Volume 200 - Issue 5 - p 455–456
doi: 10.1097/NMD.0b013e3182532e5e
Book Reviews

Psychodynamic Psychotherapy: A Clinical Manual

Yusim, Anna MD

Free Access
Article Outline
Collapse Box

Author Information

Upper East Side Psychiatry New York, NY
In Psychodynamic Psychotherapy: A Clinical Manual, Deborah L. Cabaniss and her three coauthors have sought to create a reference book for clinicians that systematically and methodically delineates each step in the psychodynamic psychotherapy process, from the initial evaluation to termination. They have succeeded. This book fills a needed gap in clinical literature on psychodynamic treatment precisely because it does not get bogged down in theoretical complexity; this is a book about the technique of psychodynamic treatment. Inspired by a psychodynamic psychotherapy course the authors taught for psychiatry residents at the New York State Psychiatric Institute/Columbia University, this book combines the clarity and simplicity needed for a beginning practitioner with the depth and complexity that would appeal to a more experienced therapist.
Part One (“What is Psychodynamic Psychotherapy?”) introduces the reader to how psychodynamic psychotherapy works. It differentiates uncovering versus supporting therapeutic techniques and describes three theories of therapeutic action: making the unconscious conscious, supporting weakened ego function, and reactivating development.
Part Two (“The Evaluation”) describes how to evaluate the suitability of a candidate for psychodynamic psychotherapy, including an assessment of ego function, superego function, psychological mindedness, capacity for self-reflection, motivation, and characteristic psychodynamic defenses.
Part Three (“Beginning the Treatment”) focuses on the induction phase, including topics of informed consent, goal setting, frame and boundaries, therapeutic alliance, therapeutic neutrality, and empathic listening. This section also addresses the clinical implications of integrating psychodynamic and phenomenological models of treatment: combining therapy and medication.
Part Four (“List/Reflect/Intervene”) teaches a systematic way of listening to patients, reflecting on what you have heard, and choosing an appropriate response. An interactive companion website is included with this book to help the reader learn about the three different ways we listen: ambient listening, filtered listening, and focused listening. As listening becomes more filtered and focused, repeated words, symbols, and points of clarity generally signal the presence of nodal points or bridges to unconscious material. Basic, supporting, and uncovering interventions are discussed in detail, and three principles for choosing an effective intervention are presented: surface to depth, follow the affect, and attend to the countertransference.
Part Five (“Conducting a Psychodynamic Psychotherapy: Technique”) builds upon the previous chapter by expanding the domains of the readers “listening” to include the dominant affect, resistance, transference, countertransference, unconscious fantasy, conflict, and dreams. The authors teach how to identify the above seven features in every psychotherapy session and provide review exercises at the end of the chapter to practice this complex skill. This chapter also provides instruction on how to shift flexibly between uncovering and supporting techniques, depending on the needs and abilities of the patient at the time.
Part Six (“Meeting Therapeutic Goals”) describes the midphase of therapy: applying the aforementioned techniques to addressing problems of self-esteem, relationships, adaptation to change, and weakened ego function. For instance, self-esteem regulation can be improved via supportive techniques (supporting weakened ego function), uncovering techniques (making unconscious self-perceptions conscious), and exploration of superego function (correcting superego induced distortions in self-perception). In contrast, relationship difficulties result from people’s unconscious fantasies and expectations of others or impairment in ego functions like the capacity for empathy and ability to read social cues. Although uncovering interventions may be more appropriate for the former problem, supportive interventions are more suited for the latter.
Part Seven (“Working Through and Ending”) addresses ways the above techniques shift over time until the process of termination. The three phases of working through—limited awareness, increased awareness and practicing, and lasting change in thought and behavior patterns—are discussed in detail, as are the interventions necessary for this progression. Bilateral versus unilateral terminations are contrasted, and characteristic aspects of this affect-filled phase are discussed, including regression, mourning, and finding a replacement relationship. Each chapter ends with suggested activities designed to apply the learned skills and concepts. These exercises are interesting, challenging, and accompanied by thoughtful answers and comments.
Although the clear prose, well-organized format, and rich insights make this book a pleasure to read, it is the abundance of carefully annotated case examples on almost every page that differentiates this book from others like it. The cases bring the described techniques to life and provide a wealth of learning in and of themselves. It is clear that this book is written by those who themselves have devoted their lives to the practice and teaching of psychodynamic psychotherapy and, subsequently, developed a capacity to distill each case down to the single most profound psychodynamic conflict.
One self-acknowledged limitation of this book is the omission of certain schools ofthought of psychodynamic psychotherapy, such as object relationships and self-psychology. However, the “less is more” principle applies here. Rather than presenting a multiplicity of complex theories, this book focuses primarily on the practice and technique of psychodynamic psychotherapy.
At a time when many psychiatry residency programs do not provide adequate training in psychodynamic psychotherapy, this book provides a much-needed corrective. Although it is meant as a book for initial learning, this is the kind of book that will remain on the reader’s desk as a frequently thumbed companion and reference.
Anna Yusim, MD
Upper East Side Psychiatry
New York, NY
Back to Top | Article Outline
DISCLOSURE
The author declares no conflict of interest.
© 2012 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.

"Psychiatric Mental Manual Scam Of The Century" - Free Press - General Psychiatry News

Google Reader - General Psychiatry News


The Age

Psychiatric Mental Manual Scam Of The Century
Free Press Release Center (press release)
The “disorders” in the diagnostic manual are invented by psychiatrists and placed in the DSM for the sole purpose of increasing the numbers of diagnosis that can be made. May 12, 2012 (FPRC) -- Vancouver- The Citizens Commission on Human Rights has ...
Addiction Diagnoses May Rise Under Guideline ChangesPittsburgh Post Gazette
Rewrite means millions more likely to be called addictsMinneapolis Star Tribune
New guide means more addictsSydney Morning Herald
Omaha World-Herald
all 17 news articles »

Mike Nova: BREIVIC SYNDROME - Behavior and Law - Link

Behavior and Law

Mike Nova: BREIVIC SYNDROME

Saturday, May 12, 2012

Russia's Toughest Prisons [PART 1/4] - YouTube

Russia's Toughest Prisons [PART 1/4] - YouTube


Uploaded by on Oct 2, 2011
An inside look into the high security prisons of Russia.

Category:

Tags:

Top Comments

  • In america they have gangs in jails, they smuggle drugs in jail and booze off at night, they have open gyms and also have sports session, they eat toghether in a hall and exersice toghter , life is easy in american and western prisons,,, while russian prison is hell ! if you are caught by russians ,then you better kill yourself

Anders Behring Breivik trial interrupted as victim's brother throws shoe - video - The Guardian - Forensic Psychiatry News

Google Reader - Forensic Psychiatry News



Anders Behring Breivik trial interrupted as victim's brother throws shoe - video
The Guardian
The brother of one of the victims at Utøya says he threw a shoe at the Norwegian gunman because he wanted to send a message to Breivik that what he had done was wrong. Hayder Quasim brought the trial to a halt by hurling a shoe and shouting 'Go to hell ...



New York Daily News

Grieving relative hurls shoe at Norwegian mass murderer
New York Daily News
The trial of Norwegian mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik was interrupted Friday when the brother of one victim suddenly stood up and hurled a shoe at the confessed killer. “You killer!” Hayden Mustafa Qasim screamed. “You killed my brother!
Shoe-thrower disrupts trial of Norway mass killer Anders Behring Breivik ...CBS News
Has Norway given Breivik exactly what he wanted?Christian Science Monitor
Shoe thrower wanted Anders Behring Breivik to get messageHerald Sun
The Guardian -Kansas City Star -Huffington Post
all 369 news articles »

NYT > Psychology and Psychologists - General Psychiatry News

Google Reader - General Psychiatry News

via NYT > Psychology and Psychologists by By BRYAN BURROUGH on 5/11/12
A new book by a California psychologist examines obsessions with smartphones and other devices — and suggests ways to overcome the neediness.

via NYT > Psychology and Psychologists by By JAMES ATLAS on 5/11/12
 
 
 
 
 

The New Psychiatric Manual (DSM-5) Will Make You Crazy | Independent Sentinel

The New Psychiatric Manual (DSM-5) Will Make You Crazy | Independent Sentinel

The New Psychiatric Manual (DSM-5) Will Make You Crazy

May 12, 2012
By
That’s right, Mr. Martini. There is an Easter Bunny.
~ McMurphy in One Flew Over A Cuckoos Nest
Under the new psychiatric guidelines, the man in the lampshade will qualify for mental health care and medication. If he doesn’t do his job well, the boss will have to make the job work for him or face lawsuits and compensation payouts. When he gets older, accommodations will have to be made for him at work.
We are all crazy now. It’s going to cost us money but we get to blame mental illness for every wrong or silly thing we do. What a deal!
Cravings now count as addictions. So does Parental Alienation Syndrome which should include most of the country’s teenagers.
It gets worse.
They’ve made the definitions overly broad for addictions and require fewer symptoms to qualify. No one is irresponsible, no one is immoral because there is a diagnosis to cover you.
The changes to the new DSM-5 make a mockery of real mental illnesses and it is going to cost taxpayers, health insurance companies, schools who handle handicapped children, and Medicare at a time they can least afford it.
The DSM is the guidebook for insurers and government health plans and schools indirectly so they will be stuck with the costs. The manual is written by 162 professionals in secrecy. They receive comments but they’re secret too. It rakes in $5 million for the authors.
Apparently, psychiatrists want to drum up more business so they are changing the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) to expand the list of recognized symptoms for addictions to include cravings and mild problems. It makes definitions for certain addictions and disorders very broad while reducing the number of symptoms needed for a diagnosis.
This could add 20 million new subscribers at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars. Funds for more serious problems will likely be misdirected to cover the new costs. Medicare costs will go up considerably – we really can’t afford that. Special Education costs in schools will balloon.
Psychiatrist say the broader definitions allow for earlier treatment and saves preventive costs. As my grandfather used to say – hogwash.
There will be so many unwanted side effects. Employers could wave a right to trial and class actions suits and go pscyho instead. On the other hand, employers will be faced with a broader array of disorders by employees that will affect evaluations, suits and compensation.
Now gamblers are addicts and fall under “behavior addiction – not otherwise specified.” Rather broad, don’t you think? Where does personal responsibility come in? I see no place for it. We’re not responsible for anything anymore, we have a mental disorder.
Alcoholics will no longer be people who routinely miss work, drive while under the influence, or are arrested. Now it will include people who drink more than intended and crave alcohol. That includes a lot of people I know who like to party.
The DSM-5 includes new disorders like “mild neurocognitive disorder” (defined as a “minor cognitive decline” – often associated with aging – that requires “greater effort, compensatory strategies, or accommodation” to perform daily activities).
So the aged who can’t do their job also won’t be hirable because who is going to take a chance on having to accommodate them.
Then we have “attenuated psychosis syndrome” (a combination of low-level psychotic symptoms, distress and social dysfunction that the patient views as “sufficiently distressing and disabling” to seek professional help. That takes in a lot of people going through tough times. It takes in normal reactions to those times.
If you find these definitions extremely broad, you are not alone. Critics of the proposed DSM-5 continue to push for less expansive definitions, fearing that overly broad definitions will lead to over-diagnosis and hypochondria.
In an open letter from the Society for Humanistic Psychology, three major concerns with the proposed draft of the DSM-5 were outlined -
  • Lowering of diagnostic thresholds. It expands disorders like ADD which is already overly diagnosed with people being overly medicated.
  • Introduction of new disorders. Children and adults can be more easily victimized by the overzealous.
  • Lack of empirical grounding for some proposals.
The protesters also reject proposed changes in the definition of “mental disorder,” arguing that it de-emphasizes sociocultural factors and over-emphasizes biological theory.
The letter is in response to an unsatisfactory put-off by the DSM-5 Task Force Members. They justified their testing and they plan to do make these changes no matter what.
The British Psychological Association, an esteemed organization, roundly condemns the DSM-5 and its outrageous move to take normal behavior and classify it as a disorder – “Medicalizing normal experience stigmatizes and cheapens the human condition and promotes overtreatment with unnecessary and potentially harmful drugs. But the BPS critique goes too far and wide in denying the value of all psychiatric diagnosis.”
For instance, they want to take the serious illness of Schizophrenia and put it in the same category as a broad and unknown, unproven “psychosis risk disorder.” There is serious opposition to even including “psychosis risk disorder.” Seriously, what the heck is it? It could be anything.
The changes represent the single biggest expansion in 40 years coming at a time when we are borrowing 40 cents of every dollar spent and when Americans are now being encouraged to cast blame as the answer to all our problems. We are no longer behaving badly, we are mentally disordered.
The liberal definition will certainly increase addiction rates. Even people who didn’t think of themselves as addicts, now get to do so. I’m certain that is not a good mind set.
There is room for massive corruption here as psychiatrists increase business and with their close ties to Big Pharma, both enter into a possibly corrupt business expansion and mutual financial feeding frenzy. Psychiatrists love to drug people. In fact, that’s mostly what they do. They diagnose and then drug.

D.S.M. Revisions May Sharply Increase Addiction Diagnoses - NYTimes.com

D.S.M. Revisions May Sharply Increase Addiction Diagnoses - NYTimes.com

May 11, 2012

Addiction Diagnoses May Rise Under Guideline Changes

WASHINGTON — In what could prove to be one of their most far-reaching decisions, psychiatrists and other specialists who are rewriting the manual that serves as the nation’s arbiter of mental illness have agreed to revise the definition of addiction, which could result in millions more people being diagnosed as addicts and pose huge consequences for health insurers and taxpayers.
The revision to the manual, known as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or D.S.M., would expand the list of recognized symptoms for drug and alcohol addiction, while also reducing the number of symptoms required for a diagnosis, according to proposed changes posted on the Web site of the American Psychiatric Association, which produces the book.
In addition, the manual for the first time would include gambling as an addiction, and it might introduce a catchall category — “behavioral addiction — not otherwise specified” — that some public health experts warn would be too readily used by doctors, despite a dearth of research, to diagnose addictions to shopping, sex, using the Internet or playing video games.
Part medical guidebook, part legal reference, the manual has long been embraced by government and industry. It dictates whether insurers, including Medicare and Medicaid, will pay for treatment, and whether schools will expand financing for certain special-education services. Courts use it to assess whether a criminal defendant is mentally impaired, and pharmaceutical companies rely on it to guide their research.
The broader language involving addiction, which was debated this week at the association’s annual conference, is intended to promote more accurate diagnoses, earlier intervention and better outcomes, the association said. “The biggest problem in all of psychiatry is untreated illness, and that has huge social costs,” said Dr. James H. Scully Jr., chief executive of the group.
But the addiction revisions in the manual, scheduled for release in May 2013, have already provoked controversy similar to concerns previously raised about proposals on autism, depression and other conditions. Critics worry that changes to the definitions of these conditions would also sharply alter the number of people with diagnoses.
While the association says that the addiction definition changes would lead to health care savings in the long run, some economists say that 20 million substance abusers could be newly categorized as addicts, costing hundreds of millions of dollars in additional expenses.
“The chances of getting a diagnosis are going to be much greater, and this will artificially inflate the statistics considerably,” said Thomas F. Babor, a psychiatric epidemiologist at the University of Connecticut who is an editor of the international journal Addiction. Many of those who get addiction diagnoses under the new guidelines would have only a mild problem, he said, and scarce resources for drug treatment in schools, prisons and health care settings would be misdirected.
“These sorts of diagnoses could be a real embarrassment,” Dr. Babor added.
The scientific review panel of the psychiatric association has demanded more evidence to support the revisions on addiction, but several researchers involved with the manual have said that the panel is not likely to change its proposal significantly.
The controversies about the revisions have highlighted the outsize influence of the manual, which brings in more than $5 million annually to the association and is written by a group of 162 specialists in relative secrecy. Besieged from all sides, the association has received about 25,000 comments on the proposed changes from treatment centers, hospital representatives, government agencies, advocates for patient groups and researchers. The organization has declined to make these comments public.
While other medical specialties rely on similar diagnostic manuals, none have such influence. “The D.S.M. is distinct from all other diagnostic manuals because it has an enormous, perhaps too large, impact on society and millions of people’s lives,” said Dr. Allen J. Frances, a professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Duke, who oversaw the writing of the current version of the manual and worked on previous editions. “Unlike many other fields, psychiatric illnesses have no clear biological gold standard for diagnosing them. They present in different ways, and illnesses often overlap with each other.”
Dr. Frances has been one of the most outspoken critics of the new draft version, saying that overly broad and vaguely worded definitions will create more “false epidemics” and “medicalization of everyday behavior.” Like some others, he has also questioned whether a private association, whose members stand to gain from treating more patients, should be writing the manual, rather than an independent group or a federal agency.
Under the new criteria, people who often drink more than intended and crave alcohol may be considered mild addicts. Under the old criteria, more serious symptoms, like repeatedly missing work or school, being arrested or driving under the influence, were required before a person could receive a diagnosis as an alcohol abuser.
Dr. George E. Woody, a professor of psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, said that by describing addiction as a spectrum, the manual would reflect more accurately the distinction between occasional drug users and full-blown addicts. Currently, only about 2 million of the nation’s more than 22 million addicts get treatment, partly because many of them lack health insurance.
Dr. Keith Humphreys, a psychology professor at Stanford who specializes in health care policy and who served as a drug control policy adviser to the White House from 2009 to 2010, predicted that as many as 20 million people who were previously not recognized as having a substance abuse problem would probably be included under the new definition, with the biggest increase among people who are unhealthy users, rather than severe abusers, of drugs.
“This represents the single biggest expansion in the quality and quantity of addiction treatment this country has seen in 40 years,” Dr. Humphreys said, adding that the new federal health care law may allow an additional 30 million people who abuse drugs or alcohol to gain insurance coverage and access to treatment. Some economists have said that the number could be much lower, though, because many insurers will avoid or limit coverage of addiction treatment.
The savings from early intervention usually show up within a year, Dr. Humphreys said, and most patients with a new diagnosis would get consultations with nurses, doctors or therapists, rather than expensive prescriptions for medicines typically reserved for more severe abusers.
Many scholars believe that the new manual will increase addiction rates. A study by Australian researchers found, for example, that about 60 percent more people would be considered addicted to alcohol under the new manual’s standards. Association officials expressed doubt, however, that the expanded addiction definitions would sharply increase the number of new patients, and they said that identifying abusers sooner could prevent serious complications and expensive hospitalizations.
“We can treat them earlier,” said Dr. Charles P. O’Brien, a professor of psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania and the head of the group of researchers devising the manual’s new addiction standards. “And we can stop them from getting to the point where they’re going to need really expensive stuff like liver transplants.”
Some critics of the new manual have said that it has been tainted by researchers’ ties to pharmaceutical companies.
“The ties between the D.S.M. panel members and the pharmaceutical industry are so extensive that there is the real risk of corrupting the public health mission of the manual,” said Dr. Lisa Cosgrove, a fellow at the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard, who published a study in March that said two-thirds of the manual’s advisory task force members reported ties to the pharmaceutical industry or other financial conflicts of interest.
Dr. Scully, the association’s chief, said the group had required researchers involved with writing the manual to disclose more about financial conflicts of interest than was previously required.
Dr. O’Brien, who led the addiction working group, has been a consultant for several pharmaceutical companies, including Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline and Sanofi-Aventis, all of which make drugs marketed to combat addiction.
He has also worked extensively as a paid consultant for Alkermes, a pharmaceutical company, studying a drug, Vivitrol, that combats alcohol and heroin addiction by preventing craving. He was the driving force behind adding “craving” to the new manual’s list of recognized symptoms of addiction.
“I’m quite proud to have played a role, because I know that craving plays such an important role in addiction,” Dr. O’Brien said, adding that he had never made any money from the sale of drugs that treat craving.
Dr. Howard B. Moss, associate director for clinical and translational research at the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, in Bethesda, Md., described opposition from many researchers to adding “craving” as a symptom of addiction. He added that he quit the group working on the addiction chapter partly out of frustration with what he described as a lack of scientific basis in the decision making.
“The more people diagnosed with cravings,” Dr. Moss said, “the more sales of anticraving drugs like Vivitrol or naltrexone.”

Break Up the Psychiatric Monopoly - NYTimes.com

Break Up the Psychiatric Monopoly - NYTimes.com

May 11, 2012

Diagnosing the D.S.M.

AT its annual meeting this week, the American Psychiatric Association did two wonderful things: it rejected one reckless proposal that would have exposed nonpsychotic children to unnecessary and dangerous antipsychotic medication and another that would have turned the existential worries and sadness of everyday life into an alleged mental disorder.
But the association is still proceeding with other suggestions that could potentially expand the boundaries of psychiatry to define as mentally ill tens of millions of people now considered normal. The proposals are part of a major undertaking: revisions to what is often called the “bible of psychiatry” — the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or D.S.M. The fifth edition of the manual is scheduled for publication next May.
I was heavily involved in the third and fourth editions of the manual but have reluctantly concluded that the association should lose its nearly century-old monopoly on defining mental illness. Times have changed, the role of psychiatric diagnosis has changed, and the association has changed. It is no longer capable of being sole fiduciary of a task that has become so consequential to public health and public policy.
Psychiatric diagnosis was a professional embarrassment and cultural backwater until D.S.M.-3 was published in 1980. Before that, it was heavily influenced by psychoanalysis, psychiatrists could rarely agree on diagnoses and nobody much cared anyway.
D.S.M.-3 stirred great professional and public excitement by providing specific criteria for each disorder. Having everyone work from the same playbook facilitated treatment planning and revolutionized research in psychiatry and neuroscience.
Surprisingly, D.S.M.-3 also caught on with the general public and became a runaway best seller, with more than a million copies sold, many more than were needed for professional use. Psychiatric diagnosis crossed over from the consulting room to the cocktail party. People who previously chatted about the meaning of their latest dreams began to ponder where they best fit among D.S.M.’s intriguing categories.
The fourth edition of the manual, released in 1994, tried to contain the diagnostic inflation that followed earlier editions. It succeeded on the adult side, but failed to anticipate or control the faddish over-diagnosis of autism, attention deficit disorders and bipolar disorder in children that has since occurred.
Indeed, the D.S.M. is the victim of its own success and is accorded the authority of a bible in areas well beyond its competence. It has become the arbiter of who is ill and who is not — and often the primary determinant of treatment decisions, insurance eligibility, disability payments and who gets special school services. D.S.M. drives the direction of research and the approval of new drugs. It is widely used (and misused) in the courts.
Until now, the American Psychiatric Association seemed the entity best equipped to monitor the diagnostic system. Unfortunately, this is no longer true. D.S.M.-5 promises to be a disaster — even after the changes approved this week, it will introduce many new and unproven diagnoses that will medicalize normality and result in a glut of unnecessary and harmful drug prescription. The association has been largely deaf to the widespread criticism of D.S.M.-5, stubbornly refusing to subject the proposals to independent scientific review.
Many critics assume unfairly that D.S.M.-5 is shilling for drug companies. This is not true. The mistakes are rather the result of an intellectual conflict of interest; experts always overvalue their pet area and want to expand its purview, until the point that everyday problems come to be mislabeled as mental disorders. Arrogance, secretiveness, passive governance and administrative disorganization have also played a role.
New diagnoses in psychiatry can be far more dangerous than new drugs. We need some equivalent of the Food and Drug Administration to mind the store and control diagnostic exuberance. No existing organization is ready to replace the American Psychiatric Association. The most obvious candidate, the National Institute of Mental Health, is too research-oriented and insensitive to the vicissitudes of clinical practice. A new structure will be needed, probably best placed under the auspices of the Department of Health and Human Services, the Institute of Medicine or the World Health Organization.
All mental-health disciplines need representation — not just psychiatrists but also psychologists, counselors, social workers and nurses. The broader consequences of changes should be vetted by epidemiologists, health economists and public-policy and forensic experts. Primary care doctors prescribe the majority of psychotropic medication, often carelessly, and need to contribute to the diagnostic system if they are to use it correctly. Consumers should play an important role in the review process, and field testing should occur in real life settings, not just academic centers.
Psychiatric diagnosis is simply too important to be left exclusively in the hands of psychiatrists. They will always be an essential part of the mix but should no longer be permitted to call all the shots.
Allen Frances, a former chairman of the psychiatry department at Duke University School of Medicine, led the task force that produced D.S.M.-4.

via NYT > Opinion by By ALLEN FRANCES on 5/11/12
The time has come for us to admit that psychiatric diagnosis is too important to be left exclusively in the hands of psychiatrists.


The previous lack of a proper diagnostic system had set psychiatry adrift – lurching toward hermeneutics and away from healing. DSM-III ... Now it was the center of every clinical, research, teaching, forensic conversation.

Sitio de James - Principles and Practice of Child and Adolescent Forensic Psychiatry ebook download

Sitio de James - Principles and Practice of Child and Adolescent Forensic Psychiatry ebook download

Principles and Practice of Child and Adolescent Forensic Psychiatry. Diane H. Schetky, Elissa P. Benedek

Principles and Practice of Child and Adolescent Forensic Psychiatry


Download Principles and Practice of Child and Adolescent Forensic Psychiatry



Principles and Practice of Child and Adolescent Forensic Psychiatry Diane H. Schetky, Elissa P. Benedek. pdf ebookPublisher: Language: English Page: 385 ISBN: 0880489561, 9781585627776
About the Author
Elissa P. Benedek, M.D., is Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Michigan Medical Center in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Diane H. Schetky, M.D., is in the private practice of forensic psychiatry in Rockport, Maine. She is also Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Vermont College of Medicine at Maine Medical Center in Portland, Maine.

Happy Never After : A Callahan Garrity Mystery book download
The fruit, the tree, and the serpent: Why we see so well book download
Master Critical Reading for the SAT, 1st edition (Peterson's New SAT Critical Reading Workbook) download pdf

International Psychoanalysis » Links

International Psychoanalysis » Links

Links

Resources

Blogs

Community Service

Parenting Articles

Journals

1 Boring Old Man » it’s about time…

1 Boring Old Man » it’s about time…

1 Boring Old Man
it’s about time…

Posted on Saturday 12 May 2012

Diagnosing the D.S.M.
New York Times[op-ed]
By ALLEN FRANCES
May 11, 2012

At its annual meeting this week, the American Psychiatric Association did two wonderful things: it rejected one reckless proposal that would have exposed nonpsychotic children to unnecessary and dangerous antipsychotic medication and another that would have turned the existential worries and sadness of everyday life into an alleged mental disorder. But the association is still proceeding with other suggestions that could potentially expand the boundaries of psychiatry to define as mentally ill tens of millions of people now considered normal. The proposals are part of a major undertaking: revisions to what is often called the “bible of psychiatry” — the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or D.S.M. The fifth edition of the manual is scheduled for publication next May.
I was heavily involved in the third and fourth editions of the manual but have reluctantly concluded that the association should lose its nearly century-old monopoly on defining mental illness. Times have changed, the role of psychiatric diagnosis has changed, and the association has changed. It is no longer capable of being sole fiduciary of a task that has become so consequential to public health and public policy. Psychiatric diagnosis was a professional embarrassment and cultural backwater until D.S.M.-3 was published in 1980. Before that, it was heavily influenced by psychoanalysis, psychiatrists could rarely agree on diagnoses and nobody much cared anyway. D.S.M.-3 stirred great professional and public excitement by providing specific criteria for each disorder. Having everyone work from the same playbook facilitated treatment planning and revolutionized research in psychiatry and neuroscience.
Surprisingly, D.S.M.-3 also caught on with the general public and became a runaway best seller, with more than a million copies sold, many more than were needed for professional use. Psychiatric diagnosis crossed over from the consulting room to the cocktail party. People who previously chatted about the meaning of their latest dreams began to ponder where they best fit among D.S.M.’s intriguing categories. The fourth edition of the manual, released in 1994, tried to contain the diagnostic inflation that followed earlier editions. It succeeded on the adult side, but failed to anticipate or control the faddish over-diagnosis of autism , attention deficit disorders and bipolar disorder in children that has since occurred.
Indeed, the D.S.M. is the victim of its own success and is accorded the authority of a bible in areas well beyond its competence. It has become the arbiter of who is ill and who is not — and often the primary determinant of treatment decisions, insurance eligibility, disability payments and who gets special school services. D.S.M. drives the direction of research and the approval of new drugs. It is widely used (and misused) in the courts. Until now, the American Psychiatric Association seemed the entity best equipped to monitor the diagnostic system. Unfortunately, this is no longer true. D.S.M.-5 promises to be a disaster — even after the changes approved this week, it will introduce many new and unproven diagnoses that will medicalize normality and result in a glut of unnecessary and harmful drug prescription. The association has been largely deaf to the widespread criticism of D.S.M.-5, stubbornly refusing to subject the proposals to independent scientific review. Many critics assume unfairly that D.S.M.-5 is shilling for drug companies. This is not true. The mistakes are rather the result of an intellectual conflict of interest; experts always overvalue their pet area and want to expand its purview, until the point that everyday problems come to be mislabeled as mental disorders. Arrogance, secretiveness, passive governance and administrative disorganization have also played a role.
New diagnoses in psychiatry can be far more dangerous than new drugs. We need some equivalent of the Food and Drug Administration to mind the store and control diagnostic exuberance. No existing organization is ready to replace the American Psychiatric Association. The most obvious candidate, the National Institute of Mental Health, is too research-oriented and insensitive to the vicissitudes of clinical practice. A new structure will be needed, probably best placed under the auspices of the Department of Health and Human Services, the Institute of Medicine or the World Health Organization.
All mental-health disciplines need representation — not just psychiatrists but also psychologists, counselors, social workers and nurses. The broader consequences of changes should be vetted by epidemiologists, health economists and public-policy and forensic experts. Primary care doctors prescribe the majority of psychotropic medication, often carelessly, and need to contribute to the diagnostic system if they are to use it correctly. Consumers should play an important role in the review process, and field testing should occur in real life settings, not just academic centers. Psychiatric diagnosis is simply too important to be left exclusively in the hands of psychiatrists. They will always be an essential part of the mix but should no longer be permitted to call all the shots.
I thought changing my own mind was hard enough. The DSM-III sure put a damper on my plans thirty years ago. But reading all the history, and particularly the climate of the times – something I didn’t get when it was happening, I now see why there was a DSM-III. I still have complaints, but they’re specific rather than global. But my change of heart is miniscule compared to that of Dr. Frances. It’s quite something to have been in on all the other revisions and in charge of the last one, and reach the conclusion in this op-ed. He sure gave it the old college try, working tirelessly for the last three years to effect needed change from inside psychiatry. My hats off to him for being able to write this op-ed. He’s an unlikely candidate to lead the charge, or maybe he’s the perfect choice, or both!…

2 Comments for 'it’s about time…'

  1. May 12, 2012 | 1:19 am
    He’s over at Scientific American, too, with a complementary op-ed.
    I think this is an open admission of a broken social contract between psychiatry and the public, and it may be a Kuhnian paradigm shifting moment…
  2. @secuti
    May 12, 2012 | 11:17 am
    Dr. Allen Francis lecture on diagnostic inflation and DSM V given May 6th in Toronto. http://bit.ly/KhLuhd