Define_Mental_Illness

In the article “Inside the Battle to Define Mental illness”, written by Gary Greenberg (2010). The author utilized a subjective approach to outline his beliefs regarding the definition of Mental illness and the American Psychiatric Associations Diagnostics and Statistics Manual for Mental Disorders, or DSM. Greenberg provides the readers with the pros and cons of the DSM, the ultimate book of rules for psychiatry, used to determine diagnosis and treatment for clients. Greenberg interviews Allen Frances, the editor of the American Psychiatric Associations DSM IV. Frances explains that even though the DSM is the foundation that psychiatrist use to assign specific diagnosis to their clients, he argues that the range of concepts that should be used to determine mental disorders is actually much more complicated and difficult to clearly define. Frances questions the DSM’s method of descriptive diagnosis, which evaluates each person’s unique symptoms against a predetermined checklist to assign the diagnosis of a mental illness. Frances believes that this process has led to several errors in diagnosing clients. Frances also alleges referenced that the APA is too closely financially linked to pharmaceutical companies that stand to gain profit from certain mental illnesses. For example he cites a 2007 investigative report that revealing that the psychiatrist Joseph Biderman of Harvard, famous for promoting the diagnosis of bipolar disorders among children, failed to disclose that he had received money from Johnson & Johnson, the makers of Risperdal, one of the main drugs for treating bipolar disorders. In addition, Frances reports that pharmaceutical companies were linked to APA training programs and made large financial contributions as well. Greenberg also points out in his article that although many mental health professionals have found discrepancies with the DSM IV, they have refrained from revealing these errors to avoid ridicule for lacking knowledge in their profession and fear of losing money they receive for the treatment of their clients. This article caught my interest because it reinforced my beliefs that most things revolve around money. I have learned from my teachers as well as my observations and selected readings that the mental health field is always changing according to new knowledge, theories and beliefs that are provided by different sources. The DSM’s purpose should be to define an illness, to assist mental health professional to provide their clients with the proper treatment and medications to help them live more productive lives. After reading this article I see the exact opposite people are using this for their own personal reasons to benefit themselves. The APA, researchers, pharmaceutical companies and other specialist are gaining money while mental health clients are suffering. I worked at Metropolitan Hospital for 20 years on the Inpatient psychiatric unit both adult and child/adolescent, I have seen psychiatrist meet with clients 1x and have diagnosed clients and placed them on medications. Greenberg shows that the DSM has an ongoing process of changes over the years and throughout all of these changes all parties in the mental health field stand to gain money from this process. The new authors/editors/consulting psychiatrist/researchers of the DSM V will earn money when they release the DSM V. The old author/editor/consulting psychiatrist/researchers of DSM IV will continue to gain as long as they continue to discredit any new theories that are created with the DSM V. The psychiatrist, APA and pharmaceutical companies will also continue to make a profit. Overall the clients that are misdiagnosed, over medicated are often left to suffer until the next miracle treatment comes.