Allen Frances (background here) continues to warn us. No one’s listening.
… This wholesale medical imperialization of normality could potentially create tens of millions of innocent bystanders who would be mislabeled as having a mental disorder. The pharmaceutical industry would have a field day — despite the lack of solid evidence of any effective treatments for these newly proposed diagnoses.
… This is a societal issue that transcends psychiatry. It is not too late to save normality from DSM-V if the greater public interest is factored into the necessary risk/benefit analyses.
March 3rd, 2010 at 7:41AM
Actually, plenty of people are listening, including the authors of the DSM-V who are soliciting comments through April 10, 2010. One important change in the new edition is the removal of childhood bipolar disorder. See this article by Liz Spikol:
http://blogs.philadelphiaweekly.com/trouble/2010/02/10/the-new-dsm/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+PWBlogs-Trouble+%28PW+Blogs%3A+The+Trouble+With+Spikol%29&utm_content=Google+Reader
March 3rd, 2010 at 9:15AM
Alan Schatzberg, way out in front on the latest DSM-V, replies to Frances’s criticism here.
Schatzberg, a major target of Sen. Grassley’s academic conflict of interest investigations, ends by dismissing the Frances critique as motivated by greed.
Now that’s what I call listening.
March 3rd, 2010 at 11:12AM
“Never ask a barber if you need a haircut”
March 3rd, 2010 at 12:41PM
I for one am not surprised that APA President Schatzberg tried to smear Allen Frances… that is his style. But I was astounded to see that such a fine individual as David Kupfer lent his name to Schatzberg’s venomous attack.
March 3rd, 2010 at 3:14PM
What is one to make of Frances’ conflict of interest — doesn’t he stand to profit if the DSM isn’t revised?
I don’t know anything about Dr. Schatzberg’s research, but I do know about mifepristone (aka RU-486, the abortion drug). It took years to get this drug approved in the U.S. and then even longer to convince a U.S. manufacturer to produce it.
This isn’t to say that Sen. Grassley isn’t right to investigate Schatzberg’s financial interests in the drug company — although one does wonder what role the politics of abortion plays in Grassley’s interest in Schatzberg.
March 3rd, 2010 at 3:38PM
The royalty stream to Dr. Frances from DSM-IV is just a trickle nowadays. For Schatzberg to suggest this was a factor in Dr. Frances’ critique of the DSM-V effort was just a strained, contrived, offensive smear.
As for Dr. Schatzberg’s research with RU486, I have been a frequent critic. You may read all about it here:
http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/search?q=Schatzberg
It makes for depressing reading.
March 3rd, 2010 at 8:18PM
@Bernard — wow, that is quite a story.
March 3rd, 2010 at 9:06PM
Thanks. There is more, but the link above is enough for now.