13.09.2013

On Duncan Double's view on "DSM-5: a collection of psychiatrist views on the changes, controversies, and future directions"

As Duncan Double correctly points out at http://criticalpsychiatry.blogspot.com/2013/09/stop-thinking-about-dsm-6.html the methodologic problem is inherent in the nature of mental/behavioral phenomena, therefore psychiatric diagnoses will never be better than impressions articulated in standard language –well, “informed impressions” at best.

Thus, genome-wide hunting to leave the rest of the work to expensive informatics is not only boring compared to hypothesis testing and case/cohort reporting, but also pointless when the “phenotype” is a personal impression.


I think the only source of error in the views of psychiatrists on DSM-5, published in the BMC Medicine ( http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1741-7015-11-202.pdf ) cannot be naive wishful thinking. Many of the methods and medications previously approved by the health authorities for the treatment of official psychiatric diagnoses are very expensive, i.e. an offical diagnosis is a lot of money i.e. bad science does have financial value.