4/03/2011
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/12/ff_dsmv/3/
Current Event: Inside the Battle to Define Mental Illness
The article is a revealing piece about the difficulty in defining mental illness. The article follows Allen Frances, lead editor of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders – DSM-IV, as he starts a new campaign to reveal the blasphemy of the mental disorder health industry which he once worked for. Frances believes that his manual has skyrocketed diagnoses of autism, bi-polar disorders and ADD/ ADHD. This in turn, causes a boost in people who turn to psychiatric drugs to solve their problems. This rise against the mental illness manual is also supported by many major doctors and psychiatrists. The current belief is that the manual is still in a preliminary stage and should be updated before it is useful. The manual is currently the topic of heated debate because it is the defining work on the entire field of mental health. The DSM controls diagnoses, prescriptions, mental legal debates, and a large body of social and health workers. The DSM is a controversial work as well because of the way psychiatry works. The psychiatric field has a hard time differentiating mental illnesses from everyday suffering. The problem is severe enough that psychiatrists can only give rough definitions of mental disorders that may not be a definite diagnosis. There the DSM is a work of popular opinion among psychiatrics. Scientists use the DSM by following the checklists it provides. Before the DSM, often times psychoanalysis and judgment would be used on the patient. This method would often provide several mental disorders based on which doctors were consulted. This multiplicity resulted in a lack of faith in mental diagnosis. With the advent of the DSM, the checklist method has been a step forward, but its accuracy is still the same as the previous system. By using a checklist doctors can now provide the same diagnosis, but the accuracy of the diagnosis is not always correct. For example, a patient who has experienced a bad day before the diagnosis may be diagnosed with heavy depression. These potential errors have motivated some psychiatrists to launch a new branch of medicine titled: clinical neuroscience which analyzes concrete examples for certain diseases. For example, research has shown that there may be a correlation between cell loss in the hippocampal regions and depression. This field is currently in the infant stages and cannot be used as an exact science so attention currently is mostly on the DSM. Currently the DSM is at its 4th revision but soon the 5th version will come out. One important member in the development of the DSM is Robert Spitzer. He was the lead editor of DSM-III and helped expand public trust in the field of psychiatry. It is surprising to find that this past editor was recently denied access to contribute and give his opinion on the DSM-5. All members who work on the DSM-5 are forced to sign non-disclosure forms to prevent them from revealing information to the public. The current critical opinions on these protocols is that the health care and insurance fields are collaborating to maximize profits through this new edition of the DSM. One point of evidence is that Johnson & Johnson has recently started sending “support” to many psychiatrists working to develop the new manual. Joseph Biederman a psychologist working with Harvard is one of the few people who have received donations. Although there is a lot of negative pressure surrounding the DSM-5, there are also advances. The DSM-5 will include pre-condition monitoring. This lifelong monitoring of mental health will allow psychiatrics to make more accurate diagnosis.
The article is important to society because it affects the way we perceive our own mental health. Since the DSM is the definite protocol for all topics of mental health, any change in the manual will radically shift all understand that we have. It sets the standard for our healthcare system and how the diagnose children, adults and the elderly.
The article was well written because it gives a multifaceted view of the topic of psychiatry and the development of the DSM. In addition to this, the article also gives graphical comparisons of how the DSM has changed from its invention to the present. This is useful because it shows us both the change in mental health science. It also humbles us to see our own ignorance in the field of mental health diagnosis.
Greenberg, Gary. "Inside the Battle to Define Mental Illness." Wired.com. Web. 03 Apr. 2011.
Tony did a good job of summarizing the information the article contained, which is very important in current events reports. I felt like I understood what he was talking about when he was writing abut the DSM, or the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Also, I thought the review was written at a higher intellectual level than many high school seniors are capable of writing at. The article felt intelligent and well thought out. Also, I enjoyed the critique of the article, because it provided an insightful look into how the article relayed information to the reader, so that he, in turn, could report on it on the blog.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the length was fine, the review could have been more concise and gotten straight to the point of the article. At points, there was some excess rambling that could have been gone without so that the reader could get straight to the point of the article. Also, I did get confused with some of the Diagnostic and Statsustical Manual of Mental Disorders and the various different forms, because many of them sounded similar because of their DSM base.
I found the fact that they are modifying the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders after such a long time of the current volume being instated surprising. It does make sense, however, that authorities would do this because sometimes the timing of diagnosis can affect the diagnosis; for instance, in the article it gave an example of depression actually just being one bad day, not an entire bad streak of days.
1. In his review, Tony did a good job of explaining the article in great detail. I liked how he talked about the problems that psychiatrists face in diagnosing people with mental illnesses, because they only have a rough definition of mental illness.
ReplyDelete2. I also liked how Tony went into depth about the idea that perhaps cell loss in a specific region of the brain is correlated with depression. The way Tony gave examples for all of his points gave his arguments credibility.
3. Another aspect of Tony’s review that I liked was the fact that he mentioned why this article is important to society. The fact that our views of our own mental health can be altered by small new discoveries by scientists makes this topic very relevant to us all.
1. One aspect of Tony’s review that I didn’t like was the fact that it was sort of confusing, and although he went into great depth which was good, I had trouble following his points. He could have explained things in a simpler manner.
2. Another aspect of Tony’s review that I didn’t like was the fact that he didn’t explain certain things, such as what the hippocampal regions of the brain are, besides the fact that cell loss in those regions may be correlated with depression.
1. I was intrigued by this article because I never thought about the fact that mental illness is very hard to diagnose because there are so many different symptoms, and there are no empirical tests involved. It amazes me that scientists have been able to define mental illness.
Tony did a good job of summarizing a complicated artical and made it simple so the reader could understand what was being said about the different mental disorders. ALso he did a good job of use information directly from the artical mixed in with his own interpretation of what was being said in the artical. Lastly Tony did a good job of choosing an interesting subject that keep the reader thinking and that touched on things that we have been going over in class.
ReplyDeleteTony could have done a better job of explaining the different kinds of disorders. Many of the disorders where complicated and hard to distinguish from one another i felt that he could have done a better job of explaing them. Also he could have been more direct in what he was saying although the artical was complicated and needed a lot of explaing i felt that he could have been more direct in his anlysis of the artical rather then getting bogged down unnecassary things.
One thing that i found interesting was that even today their is no real 100% method of figuring out who suffers from depression due to mental illness or just from everyday suffering. They still need to guess to a certain degree which is strange that with all of are medical aadvances we still don't understand so much.
Tony was successful in the critique of this article because he cleared up things that I would have otherwise found confusing. I liked how he introduced the article. I also liked how he chose an interesting article to write about. If he hadn't, it wouldn't have kept the readers attention as much. Also, Tony explained his article very well. He went into detail about interesting aspects of it.
ReplyDeleteTony could have taken more of an opinion on the article. That would have made his piece flow more. Also, he could have related something else to the article.
The thing I found most interesting in this review was that I never really thought about the hardships that come along with having a mental illness. It opened my eyes to the reality of their situation.