Terminalcoffee discussion

This is fascinating, really, because the task is to decide what's healthy/acceptable and what's, well, a disorder:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/10/hea...

And what a fascinating quote...

“Anything you put in that book, any little change you make, has huge implications not only for psychiatry but for pharmaceutical marketing, research, for the legal system, for who’s considered to be normal or not, for who’s considered disabled,” said Dr. Michael First, a professor of psychiatry at Columbia University who edited the fourth edition of the manual but is not involved in the fifth.

“And it has huge implications for stigma,” Dr. First continued, “because the more disorders you put in, the more people get labels, and the higher the risk that some get inappropriate treatment.”

What do you think?

I believe there is more art than science to using the DSM to make a diagnosis. Psychiatric professionals have told me that it's far too easy to come to an improper conclusion based on observed "symptoms," many of which are highly subjective.

NPR is apparently really into this type of story lately...two on Asperger's and one on bipolar...

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/st...

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/st...

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/st...

It's like changes to the LDS Doctrine and Covenants.

Larry wrote: "It's like changes to the LDS Doctrine and Covenants."

Do we have LDS amongst us?

Dunno.

I was riding with a friend today who is a psychiatrist. I mentioned to her that I had read this, and she was quite impressed I knew about it. Of course that led her to go into a lot more detail than I could discuss intelligently. Anyway, thanks GR & TC, for making me look a wee bit smarter.

Perhaps this should go in the "What I like about GR" thread? :->