I noticed most members are MDs, PhDs, and/or professors connected with clinical practice or research.

Why are many critical stakeholders missing from the task force/committees? Mental health advocacy groups and similar organizations, patients, and policymakers should be part of this process. So many lives are affected by this mental health bible, and I am shocked at the lack of representation and diversity of the task force.

Another concern is that Western Psychiatric hospital associated with the leader of this project–Dr. David Kupfer. While Western Psych and its affiliated medical school, the University of Pittsburgh, both have a good reputation for academics, Western Psychiatric hospital has a terrible reputation for patient care. Clinicians and other health care workers have noted this.

Link to the task force and committees:

http://www.psych.org/MainMenu/Newsroom/NewsReleases/2008NewsReleases/dsmwg.aspx

http://www.psych.org/MainMenu/Newsroom/NewsReleases/2008NewsReleases/dsmwg.aspx

There are 28 people on the primary task force, and then 13 work groups who are doing that actual work for each different disorder area (like mood disorders), and each work group has approx. 15-20 members each. That’s hundreds of professionals.

I agree, however, that this DSM-V revision process has become very political and secretive for no good reason, and if you want to continue following the ongoing foibles and lack of transparency over at the American Psychiatric Association, I highly suggest subscribing to Dr. Carlat’s blog, as he updates regularly on the process:

http://carlatpsychiatry.blogspot.com/

As a dictionary of suspected mental illnesses, many redefined diagnoses are added to this manual with each edition, and how such disorders are classified and assessed.

On occasion, a mental disorder is deleted from the DSM, such as homosexuality in the early 1970s. Its purpose, this manual, is to assist mental health professionals to diagnose and classify mental disorders.

How a group sponsored by for profit pharmaceutical industry corporations that promote psychotropic drugs for various mental issues that may or may not fully exist make the determinations that they do while maintaining objectivity is a phenomenon.

Published and designed by the American Psychiatric Association (APA), the DSM is also used, I understand, for seeking mental diagnostic criteria to assure reimbursement.

The DSM is organized in part by the following:

I- Mental disorders
II- mental conditions
III- Physical disorders/syndromes, medical conditions (co-morbidity)
IV- Mental disorder suspected etiology
V- Pediatric assessments

The APA has historically directed the creation of each edition of the DSM, and assigns selected task force members to create this manual. This situation has proven to be controversial.

The next DSM involves 27 people. About 80 percent of these individuals are male, and only 4 members are not medical doctors. Most have had relationships with the NIH, and about 25 percent of these task force members have had relationships with the WHO.

Historically, at least a third of task force members have had, or do, have often monetary pharmaceutical industry ties in some way.

This makes sense, as about one third of the APAs total financing is from the pharmaceutical industry.

The APA required this task force for the next DSM edition to sign non-disclosure agreements- which is rather absurd and pointless. Lack of transparency equals lack of credibility because of these agreements of the content of the next DSM. It opposes any recovery model necessary regarding such disorders, I believe.

The DSM should be evaluated by another unrelated task force or a peer review of sorts to assure objectivity. This is particularly of concern presently, as many more are diagnosed with mental dysfunctions presently at a concerning rate- with very young children in particular.

Dan Abshear

You think being vague and elusive serves the patients and responsible physicians, or perhaps, the cronies at DSM V headquarters who have much to gain by coming up with new terms and symptoms for the pharma heads to push for new indications?

You be the judge. Have your light sabers handy.