PSYCHIATRY was betrayed in 1980 - 43 years ago – here’s how.
Why Dysfunctional MEDICAL Flaws Have Cramped Psychiatrists Since 1980
In a recent post, my friend Lee prompted me to describe what’s wrong with today’s psychiatry - MEDICALLY. . . . she wrote –
"But the DSM is a device, at least in the US, for getting paid."
To which I responded –
Well Lee, you’ve certainly put your finger on our very own central medical catastrophe, this time. The DSM should be relabelled "INSURANCE PAYMENT REGULATIONS, for use in the USA, only." It has as much do to with medical practice as the cork on the medicine bottle or the colour of the pills swallowed.
In fact it’s worse. Dr Peter Breggin reports in his book “Toxic Psychiatry”, that in 1978 the Board of the American Psychiatric Association (the APA) decided quite deliberately to go for the money – to get their riches from pills and not talk – whence the grossly non-medical DSM-III in 1980. The only one to object to this revolting professional corruption at the time was, ironically enough, the APA treasurer.
Lee also wrote –
"Since we don’t have another one, we can use this, but be clear to patient (and family) that the name is for insurance purposes."
And of course, there is a vastly better classification of psychiatric ills immediately available, and used everywhere else around the world, though tragically not in the USA – and that’s the ICD-10.
And the indigestible fact is that the ICD-10 is vastly superior medically to the DSM simply because it is more realistic, and less money-based. In order for the APA to upend medical practice in favour of paying the doctors more (certainly as compared with talk-therapists at the time), they had to distort medical practice out of all recognition, which they did, and from which we continue to suffer today. All you have to do, as I have done, is read through DSM-II, (1964), and it hits in you in the eye. I can send you a copy of the latter, if you wish.
In fact I had a legal case in Dublin which turned on the difference between the two. The admission chart there, clearly mandated that the diagnosis be entered from the ICD-10. BUT, the admitting doctor in that case, had used a diagnostic label which appeared only in the DSM, thus technically breaching his terms of service.
In order for the jury to grasp quite how devastating the difference was/is medically – on which that particular legal case turned – I had to summarise what happens in every single medical consultation anywhere in the world – and to do so in terms simple enough to transmit across the court room floor, which I did.
Turns out that of the 5 basic tasks that every doctor, everywhere always does, the DSM-III breaks 4. I even developed a whole academic paper highlighting these radical CLINICAL differences between the ICD-10 and DSM, but it was dismissed as a joke by UK psychiatric journals, so I had to publish in Wuhan, link below.
Rock on
Bob
Why Dysfunctional MEDICAL Flaws Have Cramped Psychiatrists Since 1980
https://www.davidpublisher.com/Public/uploads/Contribute/617f83e4ef9c5.pdf