Over the last few
months we’ve regularly featured pieces taking a critical line on the new
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) and on psychiatric
diagnosis more generally. We are nonetheless committed to offering a range of
views on mental health. Today we feature an article taking a more pro-diagnosis
position and offering a (possibly surprising) view on why the DSM is not always
relevant to the consideration of distress. The author, Alex Langford, is a psychiatrist with clear views on both the value
of diagnosis and the limits of classification schemes. What do you make of what
he has to say? Alex has agreed to respond to comments over the next few days.
 |
| Is the nature of most mental health problems obvious? Illustration: catcher0frye |
The heat from the release of the “psychiatric Bible” (DSM-5) is thankfully simmering down. In recent months, you couldn't throw a metaphorical brick on Twitter without hitting someone who had
a strong opinion and wasn't shy of sharing it. I found this debate stimulating,
frustrating and eventually repetitive. Rarely however, did I find it clinically
relevant.
There may be a number of reasons for this. For one thing,
DSM-5 is an American book; we use a different classification (ICD-10) here in Britain
