Quote:
Originally Posted by stahrgeyzer
That's a strange question, as if the DSM 5 is perfect. DSM 5 was published in May 18, 2013. I'm not aware of any updates to the DID section since then. The OSDD 1B & 1A (Other Specified Dissociative Disorder) section is about a half of a page long. Psychologist have learned a lot since then. My trauma therapist went over the DID section of the DSM 5 with me in therapy. She said it leaves a lot open for interpretation which can lead to completely different diagnoses from therapist to therapist regarding DID and even more so for OSDD 1A/1B. I asked her what does the DSM 5 say about people who don't have missing time on a daily bases, like maybe once a month. Is that a deal breaker for a DID diagnoses? She said the DSM 5 doesn't say.
|
My T just says I have DID, plain and simple. She's not about to change that diagnosis. My old T's from before the DSM-5 also said I have DID (when the DSM-IV-TR was in fashion).
To me, this segregation of DID to DDNOS and now the infamous OSDD 1B & 1A only creates divisions and divides among the dissociative disorders community, and the treatments probably remain the same for OSDD 1B and 1A, so why differentiate the two? They don't differentiate other disorders; they simply have specifiers and are on the "spectrum" or "continuum." The controversial DID always gets even more controversial. Even people with DID have argued that this person or that person isn't "true DID," as if the other forms of DID could easily be segregated and minimized. It's sad how our biased world thinks and then categorizes.
Back in the day, drapetomania was a racist diagnosis, but it was nonetheless widely accepted. I wished that the psychological community would understand the impact that their labeling and diagnoses creates, and that if there's no difference in the money that a therapist gets to treat DID for any kind or type, and if the treatments are the same or similar, then there's no real point in differentiating DID types. It just makes the diagnosis even more controversial and, now, divisive.