{"id":24724,"date":"2012-06-26T08:00:08","date_gmt":"2012-06-26T12:00:08","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/?p=24724"},"modified":"2012-06-26T08:34:02","modified_gmt":"2012-06-26T12:34:02","slug":"perhaps-forever","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/2012\/06\/26\/perhaps-forever\/","title":{"rendered":"get a consultation…"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
DSM 5 Continues to Ignore Criticism From Petitioners<\/font><\/strong><\/u><\/a>
Huffington Post<\/font><\/strong>
by Allen Frances
06\/20\/2012<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

The petition to reform DSM 5 speaks with the powerful voice of more than 50 mental-health associations. Perhaps more important to APA’s publishing ambitions and budgetary needs, it represents a significant percentage of the potential customers who eventually will have to decide whether or not DSM 5 is worth buying and using. Displaying its usual "the customer is always wrong" arrogance, APA has previously been dismissive of the completely reasonable recommendation that there be an independent scientific review of all controversial DSM 5 suggestions. Here is an excerpt of the petition’s most recent letter to the APA and DSM 5 leadership by the authors of the petition [the full text of the letter is available here<\/a><\/strong><\/u>]…<\/sup><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

DSM 5 is taking the foolhardy step of alienating its users. Its responses to critics are framed in public-relations jargon convincing to no one outside its own inner circle. Instead of PR, we need straight answers to four questions:<\/sup><\/div>\n
    <\/p>\n
  1. \n
    How can you rush a DSM 5 to print with such low reliability?<\/div>\n<\/li>\n
  2. \n
    Why don’t you delay publication to allow time for the quality-control step that was part of your own original plan?<\/div>\n<\/li>\n
  3. \n
    Was quality control  cancelled for reasons other than your pressing need for quick DSM profits to meet budget projections?<\/div>\n<\/li>\n
  4. \n
    Why not agree to an independent scientific review of all controversial proposals to salvage the badly tarnished credibility of DSM 5?<\/div>\n<\/li>\n

    <\/sup><\/ol>\n

    APA’s high-priced public-relations geniuses never address these questions, because not even the cleverest "image consultants" can turn this sow’s ear into a silk purse.<\/sup><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
    I left out the letter, but it’s well worth the read. It’s very clear and precise. But I included all of Dr. Frances’ words to say that he’s finally getting mad. All along the way, he’s gone out of the way to give the DSM-5 Task Force the benefit of the doubt. They have certainly not earned it. Now, he uses words like "arrogance," "dismissive," "alienating," and "foolhardy" – all of which apply. He continues…<\/div>\n
    \n
    My Debate With The DSM 5 Chair<\/font><\/strong><\/u><\/a>
    Psychology Today: DSM5 in Distress<\/font><\/strong>
    by Allen Frances, M.D.
    June 25, 2012<\/div>\n

    <\/p>\n

    … I think ‘Newspeak’ is the best way to characterize the APA defense of DSM-5. For those who haven’t read George Orwell’s ‘1984’ lately, ‘Newspeak’ was his term for the kind of bureaucratic upside-down language that attempts to turn night into day. The idea is that if you say something enough times, the repetition will magically make it so. Let’s do a quick back-translation from APA ‘newspeak’ to DSM 5 reality.<\/sup><\/div>\n