Psychiatrization of Normal Life: DSM and Its Troubles
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.48160/18532330me8.179Keywords:
DSM-5, risk, classification, psychiatry, mental illnessAbstract
In the days after the publication of the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders(DSM-5), many voices were raised against this new diagnostic classification, increasing the sensation left by the previous editions, of it being a classification of low epistemological consistency. Among these voices, two criticisms attracted the attention of the international community, both from American psychiatrists: the critique made by Thomas Insel, director of the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH); and the critique made by Allen Frances, chief of the task force team that produced the DSM-IV. Considering the impact of both criticisms, here I discuss the limits and difficulties that each of them presents. Although both authors criticize the Manual, their arguments reinforce a return to biological psychiatry and the anticipation of risks, disregarding the real difficulties involved in the classification proposed by the DSM-5.
References
American Psychiatric Association (2013), Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5), Arlington: American Psychiatric Association.
American Psychiatric Association (1980), Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Third Edition (DSM-III), Arlington: American Psychiatric Association.
Braunstein, A. (2013), Clasificar en psiquiatría, México: Siglo XXI.
Berrios, G. (2008), Historia de los Síntomas de los trastornos mentales, México: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
Castiel, L. (2007), A Saúde Persecutória e os limites da responsabilidade, Rio de Janeiro: Fiocruz.
Caliman, L.V. (2009), “A constituição sócio-médica do ‘fato TDAH’”, Psicologia & Sociedade21(1): 135-144.
Ribeiro Guedes, C., Nogueira, M. y K. Jr. Camargo (2006), “A subjetividade como anomalia: contribuições epistemológicas para a crítica do modelo biomédico”, Ciência & Saúde Coletiva11(4): 1093-1103.
Conrad, P. (2007), The Medicalization of Society, Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Desrosiéres, A. (2010), La politique des grands nombres: histoire de la raison statistique, Paris: La Découverte.
Foucault, M (1999), Les Anormaux,Paris: Seuil.
Frances, A. (2010), “Opening Pandora’s Box: The 19 Worst Suggestions For DSM5”, Review of Psychiatric Times1(11): 1-10.
Frances, A. (2012), “DSM-5 Continues to Ignore Criticism from Petitioners”, Huffingtonpost, 20 de junio. Accesible en: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/allen-frances/DSM-V-petition_b_1610569.html?view=print&comm_ref=false.
Frances, A. (2013a), Saving Normal: An Insider's Revolt Against Out-of-Control Psychiatric Diagnosis, DSM-5, Big Pharma, and the Medicalization of Ordinary Life, New York: Harper Collins Publisher.
Frances, A. (2013b), “Psychosis Risk Syndrome Is Back toHaunt Us”, Huffingtonpost, 26de noviembre.Fecha de publicación:20/11/2013. Accesible en:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/allen-frances/psychosis-risk-syndrome-i_b_4343661.html.
Horwitz, A. (2002), Creating Mental Illness,Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Horwitz, A. y J. Wakefield (2007), The Loss of Sadness, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Insel, T. (2013), “Transforming Diagnosis”, NIMH, 29 de abril. Accesible en: http://www.nimh.nih.gov//about/director/directors-biography.shtml
Paris, J. y J. Phillips(eds.) (2013), Making the DSM-5:Concepts and Controversies, New York: Springer.
Pignarre, P. (2006), Les malheurs des psys: psychotropes et médicalisation du social, Paris: La Découverte.
Roudinesco, E. (2013), ¿Por qué el psicoanálisis?, Buenos Aires: Paidós. Stop DSM (2013), “To Oppose the DSM-5 is not to Oppose Psychiatry”. Accesible en: http://www.stop-dsm.org/index.php/en/.Fecha de acceso: 10/12/2013.
Sadler, J. (2010), “Waiting for the Miracle”, Bulletin: Association for the Advancement of Philosophy and Psychiatry17(1): 1-4.
Sadler, J. (2013), “Considering the Economy of DSM Alternatives”, en Paris, J. y J. Phillips (eds.), Making the DSM-5:Concepts and Controversies, New York: Springer, pp. 21-38.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2018 Metatheoria – Journal of Philosophy and History of ScienceThe documents published here are governed by the licensing criteria
Creative Commons Argentina.Atribución - No Comercial - Sin Obra Derivada 2.5 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/ar/
