Poking fun at the revised DSM

I'm writing on an article published on the Pioneer Press website (but originally from the Washington Post) about the new DSM. (I wanted to write to them about their article about Asperger's and autism being lumped under the same diagnosis, but I saw that it was a popular choice among other Group 1 members, so I went and made the process harder for myself again.) It is largely explanatory--telling readers how the decision-making process works, how long it takes, and what is on the line. At the same time, it is not-too-subtly highlighting and favoring the fear that any old oddity will now be a "disorder" and we will be medicating our potential geniuses and artists until their futures are destroyed. It has twice as many quotes from the YOU'RE DESTROYING SOCIETY side, and both opens and closes with "You see how ridiculous this is?" examples/arguments.

I generally don't get too enflamed about this kind of stuff--after all, this is how reporting seems to work--but I don't think it would hurt to point out in a letter to the editor that there is a little more balance to be desired here. Scoffing at binge eating and gambling addictions being considered psychiatric disorders isn't good form.

I may research this (when I have a bit more time after today) to see if the Post or Pioneer Press published anything that came off as a little less...alarmed. In the meantime, and since midnight is closing in, I will draft a letter. Also, ignore spelling mistakes--I'm in the process of upgrading to Windows 7, and Microsoft Office has disappeared in the process. WordPad doesn't appear to have a spellchecker.

---

Dear Mr. Stein,

Necessary as it is to point out the (very valid) views of critics of the new DSM, I can't help but notice that is nearly all you did. There were more than twice as many quotes from people opposed to new and changing disorder classifications than from supporters, and almost every example you used was something that could be deemed silly.

It alarms me, too, that mere eccentrics could be treated for oncoming psychosis and could have their possible genius tarnished or killed by medication. And I sneer at the idea of someone telling their broken-hearted partner that no, they're not an immoral cheater--they are in fact suffering from a disorder out of their control! Overdiagnosis is already a problem, and I suppose our spiral into dystopia could be slowed if we stopped trying to apply science to being different. Well, maybe.

Hypotheses aside, what your article was missing was a presentation of the possible upsides of the changing DSM. I feel like all I've learned is that the APA have lost their minds and are considering calling personality a disease. Is there anything to say that won't subject me to lectures on how Crazy didn't used to exist and how everything could be fixed if parents better disciplined their children?