“Over the summer, a wrangle between eminent psychiatrists that had been brewing for months erupted in print. Startled readers of Psychiatric News saw the spectacle unfold in the journal’s normally less-dramatic pages. The bone of contention: whether the next revision of America’s psychiatric bible, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, should be done openly and transparently so mental health professionals and the public could follow along, or whether the debates should be held in secret.
One of the psychiatrists (former editor Robert Spitzer) wanted transparency; several others, including the president of the American Psychiatric Assn. and the man charged with overseeing the revisions (Darrel Regier), held out for secrecy. Hanging in the balance is whether, four years from now, a set of questionable behaviors with names such as “Apathy Disorder,” “Parental Alienation Syndrome,” “Premenstrual Dysphoric Disorder,” “Compulsive Buying Disorder,” “Internet Addiction” and “Relational Disorder” will be considered full-fledged psychiatric illnesses.
This may sound like an arcane, insignificant spat about nomenclature. But the manual is in fact terribly important, and the debates taking place have far-reaching consequences.”
Related:
- Time to recognize Web addiction as illness, journal says (canada.com)
- You’ve Got What? Debated Diagnoses (ABC)
- The Stories Behind Sex Addiction (CBS)
- Compulsive Shopping: Is It a Disorder? (Find Me a Cure)
- Blinded Me with Science: Devolution of the DSM( bilerico.com)
The author of the above comment makes many unsubstantiated statements. It is not true that there is no scientific basis for PAS and it is not true that it is most often used to take custody away from mothers and give it to battering/abusive fathers. In a study I conducted of custody evaluators, false allegations of PAS was seen to be about as common as false allegations of sexual abuse. Although it does occur (false allegations of PAS) that does mean that true PAS doesn’t also occur. The field needs to move in the direction of better being able to differentiate when a child rejects a parent whether that is due to abuse or to PAS. Inclusion in the DSM would facilitate clinicians in this regard.
Amy J.L. Baker, Ph.D.
http://www.amyjlbaker.com
LikeLike
The 1996 APA Task Force report, it appears, did not say that PAS is “most often used…” but rather expressed concern that it “could be used” to take custody from mothers and give it to abusive fathers. And if, by your research, there are about an equal number of correct attributions and misattributions of the “syndrome”, wouldn’t you say that further research and clarification is needed to define and operationalize it before it can be included as a diagnosis? But, more important, the most profound objection to this is not whether there is scientific evidence for it or not but whether it should be medicalized. Sure, behaviors exist, but are they worthy of being neurobiological entities? DSM diagnoses are disease processes and treatable as such. PAS appears to be a case of adjustment disorder, a wastebasket category in DSM. I know you won’t agree and I suspect it has much to do with the fact that you seem to be building your career around the dubious entity.
LikeLike