a natural…

Posted on Thursday 24 May 2012


The American Psychiatric Association have just published the latest update of the draft DSM-5 psychiatric diagnosis manual, which is due to be completed in 2013. The changes have provoked much comment, criticism, and heated debate, and many have used the opportunity to attack psychiatric diagnosis and the perceived failure to find “biological tests” to replace descriptions of mental phenomena. But to understand the strengths and weaknesses of psychiatric diagnosis, it’s important to know where the challenges lie.

Think of classifying mental illness like classifying literature. For the purposes of research and for the purposes of helping people with their reading, I want to be able to say whether a book falls within a certain genre—perhaps supernatural horror, romantic fiction, or historical biography. The problem is similar because both mental disorder and literature are largely defined at the level of meaning, which inevitably involves our subjective perceptions. For example, there is no objective way of defining whether a book is a love story or whether a person has a low mood. This fact is used by some to suggest that the diagnosis of mental illness is just “made up” or “purely subjective,” but this is clearly rubbish. Although the experience is partly subjective, we can often agree on classifications…

[snip]

Notice that I’ve not discussed mental illnesses as if they were genuinely distinct pathologies that we are trying to “discover.” This is because these cases are the minority in medicine [largely infections or discrete genetic disorders] and the majority of illnesses of any type are not like this. For example, cancer, heart disease, stroke, emphysema and the majority of non-infectious diseases involve at least some arbitrary cut-off points. Good diagnoses are human creations that help us better capture a group of related symptoms that respond to a similar treatment plan. They are tools, by and large—not inherent truths…

[snip]

On top of the unsteady foundations of diagnosis are pressures from drug companies (who want diagnoses to sell treatments for, rather than the other way round), insurance companies [who want to change or discard diagnoses because they are costing them too much money], professional organisations [who want to widen the range of problems they can charge for], and researchers [who want to make their name championing a specific disorder]. So with all this in mind, you can see why the DSM is so contentious and, some would say, a mess. The irony is that when the DSM-5 comes out, not a lot will change. Most professionals will still use the same handful of core diagnoses and 90% of the manual will be ignored.

It’s also ironic that modern psychiatry has become fixated on classification. The idea is that better classification will lead to better treatment but the majority of treatments are not diagnosis specific and never have been. That’s not to say that diagnosis isn’t a useful tool, but it’s important to make sure that we don’t confuse our tools with actual solutions. If we genuinely want to improve treatment for mental illness, it’s the solutions that matter.

Just a few snippets from an article that was a delight to read. My comment on his post was "A beautifully crafted piece in a time of cholera. Thanks…" and I meant it. He had no axes to grind, just some creative and explanatory thoughts about the problems of classifying something as subjective as mental illness. There were a couple of points he made along the way that I wanted to comment on:

"an Uncertain Science"
    He calls it a science, and it is a science. Science isn’t defined by its methods or its theories. A science is defined by having a specific database of interest and by the use of the scientific method. Having lolled around in a number of different sciences along the way, it is an uncertain science, but no more uncertain than any others I’ve encountered. Uncertainty is part of science. In fact it’s the reason for science in the first place.
"Notice that I’ve not discussed mental illnesses as if they were genuinely distinct pathologies that we are trying to ‘discover.’ This is because these cases are the minority in medicine … and the majority of illnesses of any type are not like this."
    I appreciate his saying that. That’s sure the way it seems to me. I didn’t know any more about Systemic Lupus Erythematosis than I know about Schizophrenia. Having the odd tests to make the diagnosis didn’t remove the mystery or make the treatment any less different, or empirical. I didn’t feel any less medical after changing to Psychiatry than I felt as an Internist. And I don’t feel more medical talking about neuroscience than I feel trying to sort out the vagaries of a complex personal history. I hear people say I should feel those things, but it doesn’t resonate with me.
"Most professionals will still use the same handful of core diagnoses and 90% of the manual will be ignored."
    Amen. I thought that was just my little secret.
"The idea is that better classification will lead to better treatment but the majority of treatments are not diagnosis specific and never have been. That’s not to say that diagnosis isn’t a useful tool, but it’s important to make sure that we don’t confuse our tools with actual solutions. If we genuinely want to improve treatment for mental illness, it’s the solutions that matter."
    I’ve come to agree that having a solid diagnostic system is better than not having one, or having one that’s too loose, and that diagnosis should be a focus of attention like the neo-Kraepelinians said. But I agree with this author too. It has become an obsession in its own right and it’s not so clearly tied to treatment as people want to make it. I don’t like DRGs or treatment guidelines or algorithms a lot. I read them to be informed, but in a given case they are only a rough map just like diagnosis is a rough map. Invariably, an individual case has its own features that become an essential part of the mix.
If Vaughn Bell is a physician, he’d be a good one to go see. If he’s not, he’s seen some good examples [or is a "natural"]…
  1.  
    May 24, 2012 | 12:34 AM
     

    Not sure if you know this but he is from “Mind Hacks” http://mindhacks.com/2012/05/22/what-is-the-dsm-supposed-to-do/ one of the first websites besides Furious Seasons way back when… was on my list of must reads..still is, and he is on twitter…

  2.  
    May 24, 2012 | 7:28 AM
     

    “I didn’t know any more about Systemic Lupus Erythematosis than I know about Schizophrenia.”

    Yes, you did and you do, Mickey. Of the 11 diagnostic criteria of SLE, 10 of them are based on objective measurable quantities. The 11th, psychological disturbances, is poignantly enough, not one of them. Seizures count, however, and they are observable and quantifiable.

    We do not rely on the sufferer’s words, or another person’s opinion of the sufferer (CF ADHD), to diagnose SLE

  3.  
    May 24, 2012 | 11:42 AM
     

    Wasn’t there some momentum towards mapping psychiatric diagnosis to pharmaceutical treatment, a la Stephen Stahl?

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.