Time sensitive post. DSM V, comments re-opened regarding some aspects of dissociative identity disorder

Deadline for comments June 15, 2011.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) – the bible of the psychology industry, is extending the time for Your comments regarding the inclusion, definitions, and diagnostic criterion of some aspects of dissociative disorders.

The manual is meant to be an aid to clinicians to find symptoms their patients are experiencing. One of the goals is to find the corresponding number so they can bill insurance companies for patient services. Many who diagnosis dissociative identity disorder, as well as their patients, erroneously look to the DSM as “Proof” that the condition exists. The publication is not meant to do so. If we look at the DSM historically, we can see that, for instance, homosexually was once listed as a mental disorder – today it is not. There are many other examples that can be found regarding “illnesses” that once existed and have been removed.

As you know, there is much controversy surrounding dissociative identity disorder and its inclusion in the DSM V. The inclusion of DID has drawn much criticism and has prompted many clinicians to argue against its inclusion. It’s nonsense to include diagnostic category steeped in controversy as much as to include a  disorder doesn’t exist in the first place  –  as many will attest to.

There has yet to be a reliable source of diagnostic tests for DID.

Sign in to participate and to find more information

It seems like the only issue re-opened to further comments is the line below regarding social and occupational impairment and functioning. Perhaps it is actually aimed to determine if DID can lead to obtaining disability payments? Social security disability?

The committee is debating the following:

C.  Causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning. *

Proposed Revision

A Message from the DSM-5 Task Force Chairs

Dear Reader,

Welcome to the newly relaunched DSM-5 Web site.

We are pleased to present some noteworthy changes to our DSM-5 proposals that have occurred since this site was first launched in February 2010. Over the past year, members of the DSM-5 Task Force and Work Groups have updated draft DSM-5 diagnostic criteria to reflect the input received from the voluminous (8000+)  comments you, as our viewers, submitted to this Web site during the February-April 2010 commenting period. Recent changes have also been informed by ongoing reviews of the literature and data analyses.

On behalf of the entire DSM-5 Task Force and all of the DSM-5 Work Groups, we thank you for once again providing your valuable input and taking part in this historic process.

David J. Kupfer, M.D., DSM-5 Task Force Chair

Darrel A. Regier, M.D., M.P.H., DSM-5 Task Force Vice-Chair



Is There Opportunity to Provide Further Comments?

At this time, we are asking visitors to review and comment on the proposed DSM-5 organizational structure and criteria changes. Please note that the current commenting period will end on June 15, 2011.

Advertisements
Previous Post
Leave a comment

8 Comments

  1. unbelievable. really. you want to hurt people because of your own ridiculous ability to invent memories. You went to doctors for help and then sued them when they did what they were meant to do. I have absolutely no sympathy or respect for you or the people you are misleading. The fact that you did not have DID doesn’t mean no one does. The fact that you felt mislead does not mean everyone is.

    It’s amazing that you can make that leap and at the same time condemn others for what you consider “leaps” in logic.

    Like

    Reply
    • I do not want to hurt people – that is your perceptions of my opinions. My “ridiculous ability to invent memories”? Aren’t all people who think they have other personalities doing the same thing? Isn’t it meant to be a “creative” way to deal with trauma?

      You say that the doctors “did what they were meant to do”. If you read my posts, you will find that what I endured was outrageous. But you didn’t read it, did you?

      You may have a point about me making a leap, but I don’t know what you are referring to.

      Like

      Reply
  2. Steve

     /  06/09/2011

    After looking over the proposed revision it’s clear that the committee is not interested in doing the right thing. If it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, it’s probably a quack.

    Like

    Reply
    • lol. Thanks, I needed that!

      Agreed, they refuse to do right by patients. Too many egos and careers have been built on the MPD/DID myth. Patients be damned.

      Like

      Reply
  3. Steve

     /  06/09/2011

    The most reasonable thing the DSM-V committee could do is to suspend DID from inclusion in the forthcoming manual until such time as the disorder can be verified through some sort of clinical testing or professional consensus. This is an opportunity for psychiatry and psychology to do the right thing after almost thirty years of patient harm. I can’t stress this enough. Given the amount of controversy this fictitious disorder has inspired over the last three decades it is, in my view, exceedingly irresponsible to include it. To do so further harms the credibility of the profession and puts patients at risk for further harm.

    Former patients, insurance companies, regulating aggencies, the FMSF, none of them have the influence within the mental health field that the DSM committee has. I think this is a human rights issue, and i sincerely hope that the DSM committee will treat it as such.

    Like

    Reply
    • Wow, Steve. A powerful statement. You know the DSM committee is not going to retract anything. Yes they are powerful – I wonder if insurance companies are more powerful? All they would have to do is cut off the money flow… which to some degree they have done. Now DID therapists bill for treatment of other dissociative disorders or DDNOS (my personal fav which stands for Dissociative Disorder Not Otherwise Specified). They rely heavily on diagnosing other secondary diagnosis like PTSD, Borderline Personality Disorder, Anorexia, etc. to get paid. I doubt any of them mention multiple personalities.

      To me, the DDNOS diagnosis is just putting patients in a “holding pattern” until they are diagnosed DID. Crap.

      Like

      Reply
      • Steve

         /  06/10/2011

        I think ultimately it’s the DSM that has the greatest power. As long as the diagnosis remains, so will the disorder,
        ( double entendre intended).

        Like

        Reply

What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s