The DSM-5 is the tool most commonly used by practitioners to diagnose, assess and conduct therapies (Pomerantz, 2012). The DSM-5 is an evidence based framework that used scientific evidence to support any changes it made to the previous publication DSM-IV. (Pomerantz, 2012). The Dsm-5 has been praised for its use of empirical data for the basis of its decisions (Pomerantz, 2012). The task force of the DSM-5 had to work to suggestions made by the American Psychological Association (APA) 2011 which included relying on science to inform any revisions made (Raskin & Gayle, 2015). However, relying solely on empirical and evidence based frameworks can present a number of issues. One being disagreement rising in the construct of a disorder. For example
…show more content…
Definitions needs to be accepted widely and terms need to be understood in order for clear communication between professionals. The APA publish the DSM with the aim of developing a common language amongst clinicians, researchers, health insurance companies and the pharmaceutical industry (Khoury et al 2014). Previous DSM’s have aided the communication process between professionals such as researchers and clinicians by providing a universal language which has been widely accepted (Lilienfield & Landfield 2008). It has been argued that the DSM-5 places psychiatric diagnosis along the medical illness model (Rossler, 2013) which creates problems for its so called universal language status. Lacasse, 2014, states that the DSM-5 is a medicalized dictionary defining the criteria for various disorders without ever specifying exactly what a mental disorder is. They also argue that mental disorders are allegedly medical however there is no evidence to back this up. The task force of the DSM-5 carried out field tests in real world settings with real world clinicians and found low reliability ratings and diagnoses were inconsistent (Pomerantz, 2012). This raises the question of just how universal is the language proposed by the DSM-5 if tests prove to be inconsistent. This makes it unclear how …show more content…
Public health authorities have recognised a need for access to evidence based psychological treatments and have spent $2 billion on them (McHugh & Barlow, 2010). It can be argued that the DSM-5 is seen as ‘medicalisation of normality’ where bodily experiences and psychological experiences sat under and within a medical framework (Pickersgill, 2013). Pickersgill, 2013 cites Frances who was one of the leading authors of the DMS-IV when he makes his argument stating that Frances suggests the DSM-5 would ‘expand the territory of mental disorder and thin the ranks of normal’ and help to medicalise society. Frances also suggests that the DSM-5 would cause normal people to be mislabelled and this would encourage inappropriate use of medication to treat them. Lacasse 2014 also agrees with this view stating that the DSM-5 is merely a pathway to treatment with drugs. The lack of reliability in diagnosis found from the field tests impacts on evidence based practice and treatments for the disorders. It can be argued that if the problem cannot be assessed reliably then the definition of the disorder is undermined and this in turn impacts evidence based treatments (Lacasse, 2014). Diagnosis is also flawed under the DSM-5 in the aspect of culture. Some cultures may see what is defined as abnormal behaviour in others as defined as
Definitions needs to be accepted widely and terms need to be understood in order for clear communication between professionals. The APA publish the DSM with the aim of developing a common language amongst clinicians, researchers, health insurance companies and the pharmaceutical industry (Khoury et al 2014). Previous DSM’s have aided the communication process between professionals such as researchers and clinicians by providing a universal language which has been widely accepted (Lilienfield & Landfield 2008). It has been argued that the DSM-5 places psychiatric diagnosis along the medical illness model (Rossler, 2013) which creates problems for its so called universal language status. Lacasse, 2014, states that the DSM-5 is a medicalized dictionary defining the criteria for various disorders without ever specifying exactly what a mental disorder is. They also argue that mental disorders are allegedly medical however there is no evidence to back this up. The task force of the DSM-5 carried out field tests in real world settings with real world clinicians and found low reliability ratings and diagnoses were inconsistent (Pomerantz, 2012). This raises the question of just how universal is the language proposed by the DSM-5 if tests prove to be inconsistent. This makes it unclear how …show more content…
Public health authorities have recognised a need for access to evidence based psychological treatments and have spent $2 billion on them (McHugh & Barlow, 2010). It can be argued that the DSM-5 is seen as ‘medicalisation of normality’ where bodily experiences and psychological experiences sat under and within a medical framework (Pickersgill, 2013). Pickersgill, 2013 cites Frances who was one of the leading authors of the DMS-IV when he makes his argument stating that Frances suggests the DSM-5 would ‘expand the territory of mental disorder and thin the ranks of normal’ and help to medicalise society. Frances also suggests that the DSM-5 would cause normal people to be mislabelled and this would encourage inappropriate use of medication to treat them. Lacasse 2014 also agrees with this view stating that the DSM-5 is merely a pathway to treatment with drugs. The lack of reliability in diagnosis found from the field tests impacts on evidence based practice and treatments for the disorders. It can be argued that if the problem cannot be assessed reliably then the definition of the disorder is undermined and this in turn impacts evidence based treatments (Lacasse, 2014). Diagnosis is also flawed under the DSM-5 in the aspect of culture. Some cultures may see what is defined as abnormal behaviour in others as defined as