Why will half of the U.S. population have a diagnosable mental disorder?
By Robin S.
Rosenberg, a clinical psychologist in San Francisco and the author of Superhero
Origins and Abnormal
Psychology. Edited for length; bold my emphasis. Full article can be read in SLATE, Medical Examiner section, 4/12/13.
In addition to classifying some medical disorders as mental
disorders, the DSM
also has been nibbling at the edges of “normal” by reclassifying as
pathological the patterns of thoughts, feelings, or behaviors that were
previously considered normal (albeit perhaps weird or odd). For instance,
people who are extremely shy and concerned about how others might evaluate
them, and who thus avoid certain types of activities, might be diagnosed with
“avoidant personality disorder.” These same characteristics didn’t used to be considered
pathological, and in some other cultures they are not considered to be so.
Another way that the increased prevalence of mental illness
occurs is by lowering the threshold of what it takes to be diagnosed with a
given disorder. For instance, DSM-5
will change in the criteria for “generalized anxiety disorder,” a disorder that
involves excessive and persistent worrying. Whereas the criteria in DSM-IV required three
out of six symptoms of worrying, only one symptom is needed in DSM-5. Similarly, whereas
in DSM-IV the
symptoms must have persisted for at least six months, in DSM-5 the duration has
been reduced to three months.
One effect of a bigger mental illness tent is that there are
fewer people standing outside
the tent. Although the next edition of the DSM
might not increase the overall number of disorders, if the criteria
are loosened…then more people would qualify for a disorder. There are, and
probably will continue to be, fewer and fewer people who will live their lives
in relatively good mental health according to the DSM.
The normal trials and tribulations of life—the periods of
sadness, or worry, of anxiety, or grief, of difficulty sleeping, of drinking
too much caffeine or having caffeine withdrawal headaches—have been
pathologized. They’ve been made into mental illnesses… providing a bigger tent
for mental illness leaves us with an increasingly restricted definition of
mental health and can make us all more likely to see mental illness even when
it isn’t there—where there is just normal human struggle. We can become so used
to seeing psychopathology that we think—erroneously—that being odd or having
difficulties must be an expression of mental illness.
What is going in our culture that allows for this expanding
definition of mental illness? There are many explanations. The first is related
to payment for treatment. Psychological treatments and medications can be
useful for a variety of problems, but for those treatments to be even partially
paid for by health insurance companies, the problems must have a diagnosis.
It’s not enough that there’s a problem that’s being addressed. It has to be a problem. (Of course, if
you treat a problem before it becomes a mental illness, the health insurance
company will have ended up saving a significant amount of money, but they don’t
pay for early mental health intervention—there has to be a problem. But that’s a
story beyond the scope of this article.)
Second, pharmaceutical companies search for ever-wider markets
for their products. When more people are diagnosed with a given disorder
(perhaps because of less stringent criteria), or a new diagnosis is created, it
widens the market for their drugs. They push for “off-label” uses of their
medications that in some way reduce a problem, and then they push for that
“problem” to be redefined as a problem.
In fact, DSM-5 and the pharmaceutical industry have a significant number of connections: One study found that 70 percent of DSM-5 task-force members have financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry.
Anyone who maintains that the diagnosis put forth in the DSM are science-based is CRAZY...
In a crazy world, sanity must be earned.
In fact, DSM-5 and the pharmaceutical industry have a significant number of connections: One study found that 70 percent of DSM-5 task-force members have financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry.
Anyone who maintains that the diagnosis put forth in the DSM are science-based is CRAZY...
In a crazy world, sanity must be earned.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are encouraged but will be moderated. Thank-you.