DSM-5: Will millions more Americans be diagnosed with mental illness?

[Spoonman]

Hopefully this is true

Psychiatrists Laying Groundwork To Declare Religion As Mental Illness


The evolutionary biologist and renowned atheist Richard Dawkins has lucidly pointed out that many religious beliefs would constitute signs of mental illness (e.g., schizophrenia) if these were not cloaked in the drapes of divinity. Take a supernatural belief rooted in religious doctrine, and call it divine "fact" X. If it is part of a person's religious narrative, it constitutes a belief that must be respected (and for one particular religion, one should not even criticize openly any of its belief system...no I am not referring to the Amish). However, if an individual held the same belief X, without it being part of a religious narrative, the individual holding this belief would be met with derision (if not concern for his/her mental wellbeing).

I would push Dawkins's argument further. Take a given divine "fact" X held by members of some religion. Most individuals who are not part of the religion in question will typically view the belief as outlandish. Hence, a belief that would otherwise be considered a sign of mental illness is perfectly "logical" when it applies to one's religion.

Lest some reader misinterpret my position, let me be clear: I am not suggesting that religious believers are "crazy" or that they suffer from mental illness. I am merely pointing out that the same belief is either sacred or a sign of mental illness depending on the context in which it is believed. The teaser image that I have chosen for this post makes roughly the same point. A child's belief in the Easter bunny and in Santa Claus is acceptable but one is expected to outgrow such childish beliefs. Now, an adult who believes in God (who otherwise shares an extraordinary number of the same narrative as Santa Claus) is perfectly sane. Readers interested in my critique of religion may refer to many of my earlier posts on this subject including here.

On a related note, readers might be interested in the works of three neuroscientists, Vilayanur Ramachandran, Michael Persinger, and Mario Beauregard, each of whom has studied the neuronal basis of particular aspects of religiosity.

Religious Beliefs: Divine Revelations or Mental Disorder? | Psychology Today

in a world where liberals are allowed to exist I totally believe its true. but what will happen is the same thing that is happening now with guns. the religious will galvanize, join together and place a united front against them . it will create a drastic shift to the right

That is the last thing this country needs are delusional mentally ill bible thumpers allowed to own guns.

push against religion too hard and you'll have jews, Christians and muslims joining together. the left always miscalculates how far they can push their agenda. right now, they have hit the wall. the wall is starting to push back.

 

[skookerasbil]

Well we know this.....the gun grabbing crowd = all mental cases.

 

[Connery]

Some changes......that sound like cha-ching for mental health clinicians and pharmaceutical companies:

"Diagnosing as major depression the extreme sadness, weight loss, fatigue and trouble sleeping some people experience after a loved one's death. Major depression is typically treated with antidepressants.

_ Calling frequent, extreme temper tantrums "disruptive mood dysregulation disorder," a new diagnosis. The psychiatric association says the label is meant to apply to youngsters who in the past might have been misdiagnosed as having bipolar disorder. Critics say it turns normal tantrums into mental illness.

_ Diagnosing mental decline that goes a bit beyond normal aging as "mild neurocognitive disorder." Affected people may find it takes more effort to pay bills or manage their medications. Critics of the term say it will stigmatize "senior moments."

_ Calling excessive thoughts or feelings about pain or other discomfort "somatic symptom disorder," something that could affect the healthy as well as cancer patients. Critics say the term turns normal reactions to a disease into mental illness.

_ Adding binge eating as a new category for overeating that occurs at least once a week for at least three months. It could apply to people who sometimes gulp down a pint of ice cream when they're alone and then feel guilty about it."

DSM-5: Mental Health Professionals, Critics Face Off Over Upcoming Psychiatric Manual

Some of these new or changed entries are outrageous and lead to a "soft" society that will be reliant, not on themselves or self help, but those who are paid to tell them what to do.

 

[JoeB131]

now this is very interesting, espescially when you look at other current issues along side it like proposed background checks for gun purchases. We have already seen cases where individuals have been denied and even have had guns they own taken away from them because they had taken an atidepressant in the past for anxiety or depression. So now with these new classifications of mental illness can someone be denied the right to own a gun because they had PMS or tantrums as a child?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=20

DSM-5: Will millions more Americans be diagnosed with mental illness?

.

Five minutes of talking to gun nuts on USMB is the best argument for tougher gun laws there is.

Because five minutes of listening to the racism, the paranoia and the desire to kill people by these nutbags should convince you we need mass gun confiscation.

 

[Skull Pilot]

When everyone has something wrong with them no one will.

That's equality.

 

[JoeB131]

When everyone has something wrong with them no one will.

That's equality.

As long as none of them have the ability to shoot up a school, I'm fine with that.

 

[Skull Pilot]

When everyone has something wrong with them no one will.

That's equality.

As long as none of them have the ability to shoot up a school, I'm fine with that.

Yeah you would want everyone to be labeled as mentally ill that way you won't be different.

 

[Oldguy]

I don't know how this turned into a Second Amendment thread, but it did.

So, let me say this to our right leaning friends and gun fanatics: When the Newtown shooting occurred, the position of the NRA and most of the extreme right was that new gun laws wasn't the answer. Remember? Their idea was that we need to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people.

Ok, fine. Who can argue with that? But, before you can keep guns away from the mentally ill, you must have a definition of just what is a mental illness. You must have some standard of measurement, some means of determining who is crazy enough to be denied guns. Legally, you can't just say, "That guy is crazy and that one's not."

The DSM has been that standard now for many years. It still is, whether you like what's in it or not, and if you're not willing to accept what's in it as the definition of mentally defective, what will you use? If not the DSM, what?

 

[Skull Pilot]

I don't know how this turned into a Second Amendment thread, but it did.

So, let me say this to our right leaning friends and gun fanatics: When the Newtown shooting occurred, the position of the NRA and most of the extreme right was that new gun laws wasn't the answer. Remember? Their idea was that we need to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people.

Ok, fine. Who can argue with that? But, before you can keep guns away from the mentally ill, you must have a definition of just what is a mental illness. You must have some standard of measurement, some means of determining who is crazy enough to be denied guns. Legally, you can't just say, "That guy is crazy and that one's not."

The DSM has been that standard now for many years. It still is, whether you like what's in it or not, and if you're not willing to accept what's in it as the definition of mentally defective, what will you use? If not the DSM, what?

So the continual expansion of the definition of mental illness will serve to label everyone as mentally ill to some degree right?

 

[Oldguy]

I don't know how this turned into a Second Amendment thread, but it did.

So, let me say this to our right leaning friends and gun fanatics: When the Newtown shooting occurred, the position of the NRA and most of the extreme right was that new gun laws wasn't the answer. Remember? Their idea was that we need to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people.

Ok, fine. Who can argue with that? But, before you can keep guns away from the mentally ill, you must have a definition of just what is a mental illness. You must have some standard of measurement, some means of determining who is crazy enough to be denied guns. Legally, you can't just say, "That guy is crazy and that one's not."

The DSM has been that standard now for many years. It still is, whether you like what's in it or not, and if you're not willing to accept what's in it as the definition of mentally defective, what will you use? If not the DSM, what?

So the continual expansion of the definition of mental illness will serve to label everyone as mentally ill to some degree right?

That's not the point of my comment.

If you're not going to use the DSM to determine who's too crazy to have a gun, what will you use?

 

[Skull Pilot]

I don't know how this turned into a Second Amendment thread, but it did.

So, let me say this to our right leaning friends and gun fanatics: When the Newtown shooting occurred, the position of the NRA and most of the extreme right was that new gun laws wasn't the answer. Remember? Their idea was that we need to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people.

Ok, fine. Who can argue with that? But, before you can keep guns away from the mentally ill, you must have a definition of just what is a mental illness. You must have some standard of measurement, some means of determining who is crazy enough to be denied guns. Legally, you can't just say, "That guy is crazy and that one's not."

The DSM has been that standard now for many years. It still is, whether you like what's in it or not, and if you're not willing to accept what's in it as the definition of mentally defective, what will you use? If not the DSM, what?

So the continual expansion of the definition of mental illness will serve to label everyone as mentally ill to some degree right?

That's not the point of my comment.

If you're not going to use the DSM to determine who's too crazy to have a gun, what will you use?

I have no issue with some sort of codification. It's the exponential expansion of the definitions so as to be all inclusive I have a problem with.

 

[Wry Catcher]

So the continual expansion of the definition of mental illness will serve to label everyone as mentally ill to some degree right?

That's not the point of my comment.

If you're not going to use the DSM to determine who's too crazy to have a gun, what will you use?

I have no issue with some sort of codification. It's the exponential expansion of the definitions so as to be all inclusive I have a problem with.

Which "exponential expansion of the definitions" disturbs you?

 

[Skull Pilot]

That's not the point of my comment.

If you're not going to use the DSM to determine who's too crazy to have a gun, what will you use?

I have no issue with some sort of codification. It's the exponential expansion of the definitions so as to be all inclusive I have a problem with.

Which "exponential expansion of the definitions" disturbs you?

Start with the new Bipolar definition as one Dr writes

Another expert, Dr. Gin Malhi, a psychiatry professor at the University of Sydney in Australia, published a comment in The Lancet on May 10 on the new DSM-5 definition for bipolar disorder, expressing his concerns. Bipolar disorder is marked by states of extreme mood highs called mania and extreme lows called depression that a patient cycles through. Mahli felt that the DSM-5's inclusion of a "mixed state specifier" in the definition -- meaning depressive and manic states can exist at the same time -- may create confuse diagnosing clinicians and lead to improper treatment.

In previous editions, specifically the DSM-IV, mixed states had a more specific definition that included experiencing all the manic and depressive episode symptoms for at least a week. According to the DSM-5, a patient just has to have either mania or depression and three symptoms from the opposite state. Mahli added that he felt the new definition will make it so more people are diagnosed with bipolar disorder, many of whom would be misdiagnosed.

"The risk is that [the diagnostic criterion of mixed states] will be used loosely and its application will expand far beyond bipolar disorder type I and across the whole bipolar spectrum, without any prognostic significance of therapeutic benefit," he wrote.

Debate over psychiatry bible DSM-5 grows days before release - CBS News

 

[Spoonman]

I don't know how this turned into a Second Amendment thread, but it did.

So, let me say this to our right leaning friends and gun fanatics: When the Newtown shooting occurred, the position of the NRA and most of the extreme right was that new gun laws wasn't the answer. Remember? Their idea was that we need to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people.

Ok, fine. Who can argue with that? But, before you can keep guns away from the mentally ill, you must have a definition of just what is a mental illness. You must have some standard of measurement, some means of determining who is crazy enough to be denied guns. Legally, you can't just say, "That guy is crazy and that one's not."

The DSM has been that standard now for many years. It still is, whether you like what's in it or not, and if you're not willing to accept what's in it as the definition of mentally defective, what will you use? If not the DSM, what?

PMS and tantrums as a baby consttitute mental illness?

 

[Spoonman]

now this is very interesting, espescially when you look at other current issues along side it like proposed background checks for gun purchases. We have already seen cases where individuals have been denied and even have had guns they own taken away from them because they had taken an atidepressant in the past for anxiety or depression. So now with these new classifications of mental illness can someone be denied the right to own a gun because they had PMS or tantrums as a child?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=20

DSM-5: Will millions more Americans be diagnosed with mental illness?

.

Five minutes of talking to gun nuts on USMB is the best argument for tougher gun laws there is.

Because five minutes of listening to the racism, the paranoia and the desire to kill people by these nutbags should convince you we need mass gun confiscation.

actually reading the posts of the gun grabbers here show why the proposed laws failed. the idiots in congress proposing the laws used the same bullshit arguments the idiots here parrot. No one is buying it

 

[Defiant1]

I don't know how this turned into a Second Amendment thread, but it did.

So, let me say this to our right leaning friends and gun fanatics: When the Newtown shooting occurred, the position of the NRA and most of the extreme right was that new gun laws wasn't the answer. Remember? Their idea was that we need to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people.

Ok, fine. Who can argue with that? But, before you can keep guns away from the mentally ill, you must have a definition of just what is a mental illness. You must have some standard of measurement, some means of determining who is crazy enough to be denied guns. Legally, you can't just say, "That guy is crazy and that one's not."

The DSM has been that standard now for many years. It still is, whether you like what's in it or not, and if you're not willing to accept what's in it as the definition of mentally defective, what will you use? If not the DSM, what?

So the continual expansion of the definition of mental illness will serve to label everyone as mentally ill to some degree right?

That's not the point of my comment.

If you're not going to use the DSM to determine who's too crazy to have a gun, what will you use?

A court of law is the only thing that should judge someone mentally incompetent.

 

[eots]

As a graduate student of psychology I own the DSM-IV RE. The new DSM is nothing more than highlighting research of previously studied mental disorders and revising the late and onset of typical and atypical disorders.

For example, to be diagnosed with Clinical Depression the behavior must persist at least 6 months or longer by which a person demonstrates fatigue, lack of interest in daily activities, bad hygiene, loss of appetite etc. A new DSM may or may not increase the month in which a therapist must diagnose. Like the revised edition there will be little to no changes or may change what we know about other disorders. This thread is nothing more than fear mongering. Relax and eat your popcorn.

Funny the guy who authored the dsm 4 disagrees with you...Dr Freud

the British Psychological Association, lead the chorus of opposition to disease mongering proposals in DSM5


August 17, 2011

A decade in politics has taught me it is rare for prominent people to acknowledge mistakes and even rarer for them to do everything in their power to correct them. And taking responsibility for past errors is especially problematic for members of the American medical profession who work within a blame avoidance culture created by the ever-present threat of malpractice suits. Special praise is therefore due to Dr Allen Frances the psychiatrist who led the development of DSMIV for his efforts to ensure that the mistakes of DSMIV are not repeated in the development of DSM5.

In support of the criticisms of the proposed DSM5 changes to ADHD diagnostic criteria that I made in my in my last blog, Dr Frances wrote: ‘We are already in the midst of a false epidemic of ADD. Rates in kids that were 3-5% when DSM IV was published in 1994 have now jumped to 10%. In part this came from changes in DSM IV, but most of the inflation was caused by a marketing blitz to practitioners that accompanied new on-patent drugs amplified by new regulations that also allowed direct to consumer advertising to parents and teachers. In a sensible world, DSM 5 would now offer much tighter criteria for ADD and much clearer advice on the steps needed in its differential diagnosis……. The DSM 5 child and adolescent work group has perversely gone just the other way. It proposes to make an already far too easy diagnosis much looser. How puzzling and troubling.’ (Full blog by Dr Frances available at DSM 5 Will Further Inflate The ADD Bubble | Psychology Today )

He had previously (February 2010) raised concerns about the DSM5 proposal for ADHD along with 18 other DSM5 proposals including; Psychosis Risk Syndrome, Mixed Anxiety Depressive Disorder, Minor Neurocognitive Disorder, Binge Eating Disorder, Temper Dysfunctional Disorder, Paraphilic Coercive Disorder, Hypersexuality Disorder, Behavioral Addiction Conditions, Addiction Disorder, Autism Spectrum Disorder, Pedohebephilia and medicalising normal grief. (see

"the DSMIV process he lead inadvertently helped ‘trigger three false epidemics. One for Autistic Disorder… another for the childhood diagnosis of Bi-Polar Disorder and the third for the wild over-diagnosis of Attention Deficit Disorder."





Opening Pandora?s Box: The 19 Worst Suggestions For DSM5 - Psychiatric Times )

 

[Oldguy]

So the continual expansion of the definition of mental illness will serve to label everyone as mentally ill to some degree right?

That's not the point of my comment.

If you're not going to use the DSM to determine who's too crazy to have a gun, what will you use?

A court of law is the only thing that should judge someone mentally incompetent.

I won't argue that, but would again ask... based upon what criteria?

 

[Mad Scientist]

"the DSMIV process he lead inadvertently helped ‘trigger three false epidemics. One for Autistic Disorder… another for the childhood diagnosis of Bi-Polar Disorder and the third for the wild over-diagnosis of Attention Deficit Disorder."Opening Pandora?s Box: The 19 Worst Suggestions For DSM5 - Psychiatric Times )

No need to worry. DSMIV would NEVER trigger "Batshit Crazy Gun Owner Disorder" diagnoses by the "Professionals" at NIH or ObamaCare or the V.A. which would then be used to take away the guns.

Have a beer and go watch the NBA Playoffs.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Kinda' funny arguing with a guy who'll NEVER ADMIT that Vietnam was a mistake, a waste and a scam even when he experienced it first hand.