Debating DSM-5: diagnosis and the sociology of critique

The development of the fifth edition of the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders—the DSM-5—has reenergised and driven further forward critical discourse about the place and role of diagnosis in mental health. The DSM-5 has attracted considerab...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of medical ethics 2014-08, Vol.40 (8), p.521-525
Main Author: Pickersgill, Martyn D
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Blogs
Criticism
Debates
Demand side management
Depressive disorders
Diagnosis
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
Diseases
Disorders
Health Services Needs and Demand
Humans
Medical personnel
Medical sociology
Mental disorders
Mental Disorders - classification
Mental Disorders - diagnosis
Mental health
Mental illness
Methods
Political debate
Practice guidelines (Medicine)
Psychiatric diagnosis
Psychiatric Status Rating Scales
Psychiatry
Psychometrics
Responses to DSM-5
Social aspects
Sociology
Task forces
United States
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The development of the fifth edition of the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders—the DSM-5—has reenergised and driven further forward critical discourse about the place and role of diagnosis in mental health. The DSM-5 has attracted considerable criticism, not least about its role in processes of medicalisation. This paper suggests the need for a sociology of psychiatric critique. Sociological analysis can help map fields of contention, and cast fresh light on the assumptions and nuances of debate around the DSM-5; it underscores the importance of diagnosis to the governance of social and clinical life, as well as the wider discourses critical commentaries connect with and are activated by. More normatively, a sociology of critique can indicate which interests and values are structuring the dialogues being articulated, and just how diverse clinical opinion regarding the DSM can actually be. This has implications for the considerations of health services and policy decision-makers who might look to such debates for guidance.
ISSN:0306-6800
1473-4257
DOI:10.1136/medethics-2013-101762