October 10, 2017
Podcast: Allen Frances, MD – A psychiatrist’s take on the DSM, Pharma, and Donald Trump
Michael Joyce produces multimedia for HealthNewsReview.org and tweets as @mlmjoyce
Is President Donald Trump mentally ill?
Do we really need over 500 psychiatric diagnoses?
What do the changes in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (or ‘DSM’ for short) over the past 60+ years say about psychiatry? The influence of industry? Us?
This conversation with renowned psychiatrist, Allen Frances MD — although just over 10 minutes long — touches on all of the above and much more. Trust me, he’s not shy.
A central theme in my conversation with Dr. Frances is the DSM. This diagnostic guide — published by the American Psychiatric Association — lists standardized criteria that psychiatrists use in making diagnoses. Frances chaired the revision of the 4th edition, and was an outspoken critic of the 5th edition.
In many ways the DSM is not just a barometer of psychiatry, but a litmus test of many of the issues we feel quite strongly about, including: over-diagnosis and over-treatment, as well as the minefield of conflicts of interest to be found at the intersection of industry and academic medicine. Here is some of our previous writing on these topics:
We’ve also written on whether it’s appropriate for the media to speculate on whether or not Donald Trump has a psychiatric illness.
Finally, if you are someone who is concerned that our medical culture is becoming too closely aligned with the notion of ‘a disease for every drug, and a drug for every disease,’ then you might enjoy our publisher Gary Schwitzer’s take on a New York Times op-ed entitled: ‘Diagnosis: Human.’
You can find all the Watchdog Podcasts HERE
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like