I woke up this morning feeling
just a little grumpy. I am not sure why, although there have been plenty of
things to set me off. For example, I was just a little annoyed to see how the
BBC chose to report the news of the forthcoming publication 5th
edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5).
They claim it was known as the bible of psychiatry. Now come on, apart from
upsetting my Mother who considers the Bible sacred (as do many other believers
in Judaism and/or Christianity), just who are these people?
Mainly it seems the American Psychiatric
Association, a powerful group who seem to rely more upon consensus rather than the
evidence base in diagnosing mental illness. Although mainly
used in the US, the DSM-5 is influential in other parts of the world. Peter
Kinderman, Head of the Institute of Psychology at the University of Liverpool
speaks for many of us when he notes that the DSM – 5 lowers many diagnostic
thresholds and increases the number of people in the general population seen as
having a 'mental illness'.
I noted in my blog late last year that
the additions planned for this new edition of the DSM – 5 will turn normal
everyday behaviours and reactions into a mental illness. In the UK and elsewhere
in the world the International Classification of Diseases (ICD - 10) is used as
the standard diagnostic tool. ICD – 10 has been used since 1994, the 11th
edition is due out in 2015. Unlike the consensus approach of the DSM, the ICD
is fully endorsed by the World Health Organisation. Given this, I’m not sure
why we need the DSM.
Consensus and endorsement by the medical
profession could also be found in the letters page of yesterday’s Times. 12 former
Presidents of Medical Royal Colleges (including Royal College of Psychiatry)
wrote in support of the Assisted Dying Bill tabled by Lord Falconer in the Lords last week. A clever letter, which both said it wasn’t up to the medical
profession to create the legislation, but it would need 2 doctors to work
independently to ensure the patient’s wishes were met when choosing the time and circumstance
of their death. It would be just my luck
to get one doctor using the DSM and the other the ICD to aid their decision making.
I was also grumpy last week about the Angelina
Jolie story. Raising the public perception of the issues involved is great, but
this appeared to be another tale of what evidence should/could be used by women
in making life changing decisions. Myriad Genetics are facing a Court Case over
their patent of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, the genes that when present indicate
the risk of breast cancer. These genes were patented in the mid 1990s and since
that time a million women have had the test at a cost of £1970 each test. It’s
estimated that over the past 20 years at least 41% of our genes have become the
intellectual property of corporations. Its good to know that genetic testing can be carried
out on the NHS if there is a strong family history of breast cancer.
In a couple of hours I’m off to do a 23
mile charity walk – over (or rather up and down) the hills of Lancashire. No decisions
to make, other than what to put into my sandwiches: Cheese, cheese and tomato,
cheese, tomato and mayonnaise, cheese, tomato, mayonnaise, and fresh spinach – Oh
forget it, peanut butter and Marmite will do. The Blues, well last week I finally got
around to buying Seasick Steve’s Hubcap Music, another grumpy old man, but his
music is great to walk to.