the dsm 5 and its divergent critics in the research community -- Including NIMH
|
Val's Take:
The University of Liverpool study found the DSM 5 "scientifically meaningless" because the DSM is based on the "biomedical model." [see below] The biomedical model of health focuses on purely biological factors and excludes psychological, environmental, and social influences. That is pretty much a straw man insofar as that is not really where science is right now. It is NOT either biology or environment --- IT'S BOTH and environment impacts biology and it's not clear the DSM 5 represents a pure "biomedical model" -- although it does seem clear the DSM is very, very flawed and too flawed to be the basis of Criminal Justice decisions if even in an indirect way. So on the one hand, the US National Institute of Mental Health found the DSM 5 "lacking validity" and insufficiently tied to biology, genetics, imaging, etc.. Further, Canadian researchers found the DSM 5 description of "Schizophrenia" seemed to bear little relationship to the Science. On the other hand, the University of Liverspool found the DSM 5 "scientifically invalid" because it was too subjective and didn't sufficiently address trauma and adverse events. From our perspective, the problem with the DSM 5 is it so far behind the SCIENCE as to be the "disingenuous categorical system’ the University of Liverpool researchers claim. ORCHID BOTTOM LINE: The DSM 5 is not well regarded in the scientific community and its diagnoses should be NOT be relied upon by Criminal or Civil Courts -- even indirectly. |
|
UNIV. of Liverpool study finds psychiatric diagnosis to be 'scientifically meaningless'
NIMH [US Nat'l Institute of Mental Health] made the same finding over 5 years ago on different grounds -- & the Legal Community ignored it]
University of Liverpool
Highlights
|
Neuroscience News
(July 8, 2019) Researchers conclude many psychiatric diagnoses are scientifically worthless as tools for identifying discrete mental health disorders. |
|