Questions and Topics We Can Help You To Answer:
Paper Instructions:

MAIN POST 

Well, you have now had a brief introduction to the DSM 5 and the Craighead text where the authors of the first chapter state that psychiatric diagnosis is fundamental to the understanding of mental illness. You have also read a bit of Allen Frances' experience and opinions. Where are you besides perhaps confused? Share some of your first impressions from the assigned readings. Did you watch the Whitaker video and check out the optional readings? Pretty explosive stuff... 
Look for and give feedback to the others. Remember that your initial post should be more scholarly and you should cite the readings and videos in text and at the bottom in APA style.  Your responses can be less formal.  Your initial posts will be due Sunday nights and your 2 or more responses by Wednesday night.  Please check into the conversation a number of times so that there can be a lot of back and forth like what would happen in a classroom discussion.  Please have fun with it! :)





Christine RESPOND TO MAIN POST  


Manage Discussion Entry 

Hello All,
My current thoughts are all over the place but I do have a few noted points, made as I read and viewed the material from this week and last. First, I thought it was interesting that in the video, Dr. Allen Frances discusses how he would qualify for a number of DSM diagnoses, because the first time I was ever exposed (albeit briefly) to the DSM, I thought that I, and everyone I know could qualify for some sort of diagnosis, or multiple diagnoses. So, I found this discussion point very interesting. I also found his discussion of grief and the resulting potential for being diagnosed as major depressive disorder interesting because in last week’s readings from Craighead, Miklowitz, & Craighead (2013), they discussed being able to diagnose someone with a form of depression as soon as two weeks after a traumatic experience, such as death. I have personally experience traumatic loss and it took over a year for me to progress through the stages of grief. I agree with his statement about Americans being overmedicated, and he seems to take a logical stance about medication and treatment, simply providing information for people to think about and consider. I can respect that. Additionally, I would hope that a good psychiatrist/psychologist would understand and know the difference between a mental disorder and normal behavior, and doesn’t the DSM specify temporary versus chronic symptoms for diagnosing mental disorder? The extreme perspectives tend to make me weary of the information being provided, such as the perspective provided by Whitaker (Molyneux, 2012), and other extremists. While we do not know what causes mental illness or concrete ways of determining and defining it, we are all learning and if we take the stance of learning rather than assuming and taking extreme positions, we will continue to grow and better the lives of those living with mental illness.
The Whitaker (Molyneux, 2012) video made some interesting points regarding the tolerance to medication, dependence, and structural changes of the brain as possible side effects of medication. This also made me think about depression, as it is typically described by a chemical imbalance, yet most psychiatrists and physicians do not test for this before prescribing medication. However, I must say that I love the statement provided by Deemer (2019) about antibiotics causing infection being equivalent with psychiatric medication causing mental disorder, this is pretty great! I also appreciated that Deemer discussed Whitaker utilizing and purposely seeking out information that supported his thought process, as this, unfortunately seems to be a common occurrence in much of research.
I enjoyed the Frances description of our development in understanding mental disorders, in that it is a slow steady progression because that is definitely how it seems to be. I feel like so many changes have occurred since I entered the field, but they are small and progressive (though not always). It seems as if there is a lot of re-labeling and and redefining of terms, often responded to with controversy. Additionally, every field/bit of research, even within the mental disorders’ realm has a different opinion, and then you consider those in other fields that study or interact with mental disorders, and it becomes very difficult to navigate all of the information and counterargument. So, I guess I am feeling confused a bit, but I also feel that I am used to this and, as mentioned above, we are continuing to make progress, but it would be great if we could all come to some sort of an agreement or alignment, amongst the multiple fields and areas contributing to mental illness research and treatment, as this would be best for all involved.
References
Craighead, E. W., Miklowitz, D. J., & Craighead, L. W. (2013).  Psychopathology: History, diagnosis and empirical foundations (2nd ed.).  Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. 
Deemer, A. (2019). Anatomy of an epidemic: A review of logic. (Unpublished assignment). Saybrook University, California, PSY2050.
Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-5. (2013). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.  (Saybrook University library: Psychiatry Online database.) 
Eliot, S. (2013, March 29). Mental Health Matters-The Change Face of What is Normal at the Exploratorium [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Po-u69kt2A&feature=youtu.be
Frances, A. (2013, May 4). On the Risks of DSM-5-The Lens Report [Video file]. Retrieved from 
Dr. Allen Frances on the Risks of DSM-5 - The Lens Report
(Links to an external site.)

Frances, A. (2013) Saving normal: An insider's revolt against out-of-control psychiatric diagnosis, DSM-5, BignPharma, and the medicalization of ordinary life. New York, NY: William Morrow. 
Molyneux, S. (2012). Anatomy of an epidemic- The explosion of mental illness in the west [video file]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/pm77RQdtpSY