The Mental Health Minute

Articles and news about mental health issues

Mental health revisions can lead to better care

Light bedtime reading
Image by richardmasoner via Flickr

Although this article starts out a bit “tongue in cheek”, if you read to the end, you will find a thoughtful look at the new DSM revisions and the possible effect these revisions could take on the mental health industry but more importantly, on the general public.  Mary Sanchez makes a very astute observation about the effect of the DSM on all of us.

I know I have mixed feelings about this revision, but as a psychiatric nurse, I will be forced to deal with whatever comes in 2013 when this manual is revised.  I am not so much interested in diagnosis as I am in healing and returning someone to a productive and positive life.  So, although I too believe that this revision may affect all of us in some degree, I also know that my profession will just continue business as usual, despite all the hubbub.


By Mary Sanchez, Kansas City Star

Tiger Woods, we now know, isn’t just another horrible excuse for a husband. He may in fact suffer — poor man! — from the troubling disorder known as “hypersexuality.”

And the child throwing a fit in the supermarket? Clearly a case of “temper dysregulation with dysphoria.”

We have gained these valuable insights thanks to recently publicized proposals to revise the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or DSM for short, that expansive bible of the mental health profession. The fifth edition of the DSM has an expected publication date of 2013.

Each new iteration of the endlessly tinkered-with manual can be counted on for a few punch lines, not to mention grist for the mills of the culture war. (You know, further evidence of our decline into a “therapeutic society” lacking the grit and backbone of the good old days.)

All sarcasm aside, though, the DSM has a tremendous effect on American society, shaping policy in schools, workplaces and the courts, and carrying huge implications for the insurance industry. As Michael First, a professor of psychiatry at Columbia University who edited a previous edition to the manual, put it to The New York Times, “Anything you put in that book, any little change you make, has huge implications not only for psychiatry but for pharmaceutical marketing, research, for the legal system, for who’s considered to be normal or not, for who’s considered disabled.”

The manual is consequential on a personal level, especially if it is your child, your spouse, your loved one who could benefit from an appropriate mental health diagnosis and the ensuing treatment.

But the DSM has profound social and political ramifications as well. Consider the mark mental health — untreated and over-treated — has on society. The Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics has reported that more than half of all prison and jail inmates have mental health problems. Treatment might have prevented a good percentage of the crimes that landed them behind bars. Instead of a burden on the public purse, these prisoners might have become taxpayers.

But to recognize mental illness is to invoke the responsibility to do something about it. And for more than 30 years, treating the mentally ill out of public funds has not exactly been a popular proposition.

So, my plea is that we don’t squander this moment of spotlight on mental health.
Understanding the human mental condition is a lot like learning a language. The more you learn, the more you understand how little we know.

Revisions of the DSM typically reflect new research as disorders are recognized, others are recategorized, and old beliefs are refuted.

The manual’s classifications and labels are a start; attitudes and policy follow. Our understanding of depression, bipolar disorder and eating disorders such as anorexia nervosa and bulimia have leapt forward in recent years.

Or consider the ways in which our understanding of autism has evolved. The term Asperger’s syndrome wouldn’t have been widely recognized years ago. Now it is being considered for inclusion under the umbrella terminology of “autism spectrum disorders.”

The phrasing represents a more nuanced understanding: People categorized as autistic have a wide array of abilities and challenges, and it’s important for the public and for policy makers to grasp that.

For better or worse, the public has an uneasy relationship with psychiatry. It wasn’t that long ago that lobotomies and shock therapy were considered standard treatments. Until 1973, the American Psychiatric Association listed homosexuality as a mental illness. And yet we readily see that so much human pain is not addressed because of superstitions, misinformation and lack of access to adequate, competent mental health care.

So rather than dismissing the new entries to the DSM as so much psychobabble, let’s recognize this enterprise as the record of a long, steady march toward greater mental health.

To reach Mary Sanchez, call 816-234-4752 or send e-mail to // <![CDATA[

Here’s the link to the original article

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

February 16, 2010 - Posted by | Mental Health | , , , , ,

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: