But according to Allen, the versions in which he had more control, DSM-III and IV were acceptable at the time, so he wouldn't throw out much of the past content, just parts of the latest edition it seems and the push for quick medication-related diagnoses of the "worried well." Does that change your argument at all? Or is the fact that he was so okay with content of the book's prior editions that he had that managing influence on its publication matter?
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/conte...3/s3763502.htm
My sticking point is not flaws in the system, or that the flaws are serious, it's that therapy does more harm than good for the majority who use it. I haven't yet seen any evidence of that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BudFox
My sense, from my own reading, is that the bulk of Psychiatry and its bible the DSM is fraud and quackery and social engineering and marketing for the drug companies.
|
But about psychiatry, the man you quote, Francis Allen says:
"I very much support the diagnostic system and I'm a great believer in psychiatry. I've seen tens of thousands of patients who've benefited from psychiatric treatment. I'm worried about it extending itself too thin beyond its area of competence. Careful diagnosis and careful treatment saves lives and dramatically improves them. What I'm worried about is excessive diagnosis and excessive treatment for the worried well. The worst thing that could come from this is if people lose faith in psychiatry, stop their medicine, get sick and maybe even kill themselves. So people should not lose faith in psychiatry. It's a lot better than DSM V."