Why Occupy the APA?
This peaceful protest was conceived by MindFreedom International,
which has worked for 26 years as an independent voice
of survivors of psychiatric human rights violations, to expose the fact that the
proposed fifth edition of the American Psychiatric Association’s “bible,”
the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of
Mental Disorders (DSM-5) pushes the mental health
industry to medicalize
problems that aren’t medical, inevitably leading to over-prescription of
psychiatric drugs – including for people experiencing
natural human emotions,
such as grief and shyness.
Occupy the APA
has attracted participants from across the mental health community who oppose
the proposed DSM-5. This includes the
Coalition for DSM-5 Reform,
whose
petition
has been signed by more than 13,000 psychologists.
The Coalition for DSM-5 Reform is “concerned about some proposed changes [in the
DSM] that have no basis in the scientific literature. These changes pose
substantial risks to patients/clients, practitioners, and the mental health
professions in general.”
To quote from Coalition literature, areas of particular concern include:
·
Lowering of diagnostic thresholds,
which may expand the number of people who meet criteria for certain disorders
and lead to an increase in false-positive diagnoses.
·
Certain proposed revisions may lead to
misuse in vulnerable populations, such as children and the elderly. This is
particularly concerning if some of the newly proposed disorders are to be
treated with neuroleptics, which are known to have dangerous side-effects.
·
The proposed wording of the new
definition of mental disorder is ambiguous, and if read literally
may risk resulting in the labeling of
sociopolitical deviance as mental disorder.
·
The personality disorders section is perplexing.
A member of the Personality Disorders Workgroup has publicly described the
proposals as “a disappointing and confusing mixture of innovation and
preservation of the status quo that is inconsistent, lacks coherence, is
impractical, and, in places, is incompatible with empirical facts” (Livesley,
2010).
·
Conditions proposed by outside sources include
questionable suggestions such as Apathy
Syndrome, Internet Addiction Disorder, and Parental Alienation Syndrome.
·
Various changes throughout the manual place subtle emphasis on
medico-physiological theory. . . . This move is problematic because
growing evidence suggests that psychopathology cannot be reduced to purely
biological explanations and that psychotropic medications pose substantial
iatrogenic hazards.
Among the conclusions reached by the Coalition for DSM-5 Reform is that
“there is a need for a revision of the
way mental distress is thought about, starting with recognition of the
overwhelming evidence that it is on a spectrum with ‘normal’ experience and the
fact that strongly evidenced causal factors include psychosocial factors such as
poverty, unemployment and trauma.”