Are We All Crazy?
“The DSM V would dramatically raise the rates of mental disorder in the general population,” said Allen Frances, head of the team that revised the fourth edition of the manual. “Some of the new diagnoses would be extremely common and pharmaceutical marketing would amplify the risk of their being found. This means, of course, that a lot of otherwise normal people will be medicated.”
See the full Wall Street Journal editorial by Sally Satel on proposed revisions to the “psychiatrists’ bible.”
Not sure I understand this one. Instead of diagnosing people who are actually sick, these new guidelines will allow doctors to diagnose people who worry they might get sick?
I just read Mr. Goodman’s article titled “Ten Easy Reforms to Cover Preexisting Conditions,” I do not think he faces the problem.Health Savings Accounts and Tax Deductions are not going to help someone who’s insurance company has dropped them and they face a $1 million future of bills. I have just Two Easy Reforms to Cover Preexisting Conditions:
1. No insurance company can drop an Insured that has kept up his/her premium payments.
2. Insurance companies cannot increase premiums more than two times the increases of their average Insured and may not reduce coverage on an individual until after a time equal to the length of time the individual has been insured by the company.
Gerry: It is against the law (and has been for some time) for an insurance company to drop someone with an individual insurance policy. It’s all guranteed renewable.
I think the answer to your question is “yes.” Under the new guidelines almost anybody could be declared to have a mental health problem.
It’s easy to see why the psychiatric community wants to expand the percentage of the population that falls within the definition of a mental illness. If they expand the definition, more people will be stigmatized into seeking care; and insurers will have to reimburse for these largely needless treatments.
According to an NCPA brief analysis “Critics suspect mental health professionals secretly believe there is no such being as a truly mentally healthy individual who could not benefit from therapy. Such an elastic view of who needs treatment and how much has led to some notorious cases of fraud in which insured patients were hospitalized, then proclaimed “cured” – on the very day their insurance benefits lapsed.” http://www.ncpathinktank.org/pub/ba412
Everyone outside of a narrow range should not be branded as outliers in need of treatment. What ever happened to just allowing people to be a little weird if they choose to be that way?
It’s in the interests of the mental health community to expand their definitions of sickness, just as its in the interest of the medical community to expand the range of conditions which can be treated.
And the real question is whether or not we could reasonably benefit from such assistance.
Considering that most mental health professionals I’ve met were a little… off… themselves, I would have to guess that making normal personality quirks into mental illness is probably not in the best interest of society.
On the other hand, Peter Kramer makes some really interesting points in his book, Listening to Prozac. His central thesis is this: If Prozac helps shy people become more successful (by being more outgoing, etc), then why shouldn’t everyone who has any touch of shyness take it? On the other hand, society works well with a wide range of personalities, and if everyone takes Prozac, we might throw off some cosmic balance that keeps society functioning.