DSM V (Psychiatric Theory)

[uniquemand]

Before this thread kicks off, let me state for the record that I am not against psychiatry, I'm not against psychology, and I believe there are a lot of very good people in these fields.

That said, I think the scientific basis for psychiatry is extremely weak, that their theories are fatally flawed, and that the DSM is pseudo-scientific.

Many years ago, I found the work of Dr. Jock McLaren online, and started reading his essays. Really heady philosophy of science work, heavy critique of his own profession (he's a psychiatrist). Since then, he's come out with two books criticizing psychiatry. He is NOT affiliated with CCHR, and his goal is not to stop effective psychiatry. He's proposed his own theories, and so is not just a sniper. That said, I offer you his youtube vids on criticizing DSM V, and look forward to people calling me a closet scientologist, ignorant, etc.

http://www.youtube.com/user/jockmcl...9DG772dcKNbH2yTV6zI5dWv70#p/a/u/1/eeEx1MqqE7M

 

[Zinjifar]

Just to kick this off, the thread title itself is a red herring.

DSM V is the 'diagnostic and statistical manual' and, it's sometimes worth a chuckle or two over 'Inability to Scratch Scrotum Disorder' and such silliness.

Enough so that that's one of the most common attack areas against psychology and psychiatry in general.

But, it's bullshit.

Much to Scientology (and CCHR)'s chagrin, the reason for such idiocy is that psychiatry and psychology are *recognized* as treatment options and are covered by *insurance* (and state run programs), which being bureaucratic require 'codes' and categories in order to paperwork any treatment.

So, a person who really *can't* scratch his scrotum may very well have a psychological problem that *can* be helped by treatment and therapy, but, if you can't write it up on the forms; you can't be paid for it.

Just my 2 cents.

Zinj

 

[uniquemand]

DSM V is indicative, IMO, of the problems in psychiatric theory (or lack thereof). I don't think the title of the thread is a red herring. The guy discusses DSM, and the theories behind it, and why he thinks it's not scientific.

It was once *recognized* that homosexuality was a psychiatric illness (DSM III). Does this make it valid?

 

[Zinjifar]

If a person is *unhappy* being homosexual and wants to be treated for his *unhappiness*, the shrink is going to have to have a DSM code.

*Anything* you can legitimately be treated for will need a code.

Or the therapist won't be paid.

Zinj

 

[uniquemand]

This is an insurance/accounting issue, not a scientific issue. DSM claims that their categories represent real illnesses, related to neurological problems. It is this claim that McLaren goes after.

 

[Zinjifar]

And, it's a deliberately bogus claim. One that's the core of comedy about 'psychiatry' for decades.

Yes, there *are* 'psychs' who would love nothing more than to declare *everybody* in need of treatment. And, there are kitchen remodelers that replace perfectly good tile with linoleum.

Big yawn factor.

Zinj

 

[uniquemand]

McLaren is not on a crusade against psychiatrists. The point is about the scientific basis of psychiatry, not about the ethical basis, or the business practices. I'm sorry if this doesn't interest you, but that is the topic.