{"id":275,"date":"2010-05-14T05:49:32","date_gmt":"2010-05-14T11:49:32","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.cchrstl.org\/wordpress\/?p=275"},"modified":"2024-07-14T05:43:09","modified_gmt":"2024-07-14T10:43:09","slug":"a-brief-report-on-the-unreliability-of-the-diagnostic-and-statistical-manual-of-mental-disorders-dsm","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.cchrstl.org\/wordpress\/2010\/05\/14\/a-brief-report-on-the-unreliability-of-the-diagnostic-and-statistical-manual-of-mental-disorders-dsm\/","title":{"rendered":"A BRIEF REPORT ON THE UNRELIABILITY OF THE DIAGNOSTIC and STATISTICAL MANUAL OF MENTAL DISORDERS (DSM)"},"content":{"rendered":"

The American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders<\/em> (DSM) <\/em>is the book that contains names and descriptions of 374 so-called mental disorders (including everything from depression to “caffeine withdrawal disorder”). Doctors, psychiatrists and other medical and mental health practitioners use the DSM <\/em>to diagnose patients. Each DSM<\/em> mental disorder description carries a code that clinicians can use to substantiate claims for health insurance reimbursement.<\/p>\n

Though it has become very influential since it first appeared in 1952 (when it only contained 112 disorders), there is one crucial test the DSM has never passed: scientific validity. In fact, after more than 50 years of deception, broad\u00c2\u00a0exposure is now being given to the unscientific and ludicrous nature of this “943-page doorstop.” [1]<\/p>\n

Despite a growing consensus of people who see the DSM for what it is-a purely subjective work of no scientific substance or authority-it is still accepted in the legal system as being a scientific work that catalogs descriptions of mental disorders as if they were real medical diseases on the order of cancer or diabetes.<\/p>\n

It is strongly suspected that the acceptance of DSM <\/em>data in the American courtroom is not the product of an informed understanding of DSM by legal authorities but rather an unevaluated acceptance or deference to testimony by psychiatric\/psychological experts who neglect to inform judges and others that what they cite for the validation of their testimony (DSM) is a tool of admitted unreliability. Were the true nature of the DSM broadly known to judges and other legal authorities, one has to wonder how much longer its forensic use would be allowed.<\/p>\n

The ironic fact is that, within the covers of the various editions of DSM, its editors freely admit to the book’s intended use and its limitations.<\/p>\n

The following short report provides sections of text from the third and fourth editions of the DSM <\/em>and additional information on the book’s diagnostic unreliability.<\/p>\n

One personal injury attorney who received this information stated, <\/strong>“I did the deposition of the defendant’s psychiatric expert. I did some major damage! At the end of the deposition, I began asking questions about the DSM. Defense counsel just about jumped out of their skin when I brought up the fact that the DSM says that there is the potential for misuse or misunderstanding in forensic psychiatry because of the imperfect fit between the ultimate concerns of the law and psychiatry!”<\/p>\n

This information will reveal to you the “chinks in the armor” that you can use in depositions, cross-examination, etc. to prevent DSM from being used to color judges’ and juries’ perceptions.<\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

DSM-III-R<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

By its own admission, the purpose of DSM <\/em>is to facilitate communication between clinicians in the areas of diagnosis, study and treatment. You can therefore characterize the DSM as being nothing more than a sort of dictionary for health care providers-and not otherwise any sort of authority in any other arena. <\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

“The purpose of the DSM-III-R is to provide clear descriptions of diagnostic categories in order to enable clinicians and investigators to diagnose, communicate about, study, and treat the various mental disorders. It is to be understood that inclusion here, for clinical and research purposes, of a diagnostic category such as Pathological Gambling or Pedophilia does not imply that the conditions meets legal or other non-medical criteria for what constitutes mental disease, mental disorder, or mental disability<\/em>. The clinical and scientific considerations involved in categorization of these conditions as mental disorders may not be wholly relevant to legal judgments, for example, that take into account such issues as individual responsibility, disability determination, and competency.” <\/em>[2] (Emphasis added.)<\/p>\n

DSM-IV<\/strong><\/p>\n

The editors of this edition admit to the frailties of using DSM diagnoses in a forensic setting due to the “imperfect fit between the questions of ultimate concern to the law and the information contained in a clinical diagnosis”:<\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n