Allen Frances, Chair of the DSM-IV Task Force lets loose on the DSM-5. He acknowledges the noxious effects of professional interests on research and practice in a way that is rarely seen from leaders of his stature. [emphasis mine]
This is the saddest moment in my 45 year career of studying, practicing, and teaching psychiatry. The Board of Trustees of the American Psychiatric Association has given its final approval to a deeply flawed DSM 5 containing many changes that seem clearly unsafe and scientifically unsound. My best advice to clinicians, to the press, and to the general public – be skeptical and don’t follow DSM 5 blindly down a road likely to lead to massive over-diagnosis and harmful over-medication. Just ignore the ten changes that make no sense.
The motives of the people working on DSM 5 have often been questioned. They have been accused of having a financial conflict of interest because some have (minimal) drug company ties and also because so many of the DSM 5 changes will enhance Pharma profits by adding to our already existing societal overdose of carelessly prescribed psychiatric medicine. But I know the people working on DSM 5 and know this charge to be both unfair and untrue. Indeed, they have made some very bad decisions, but they did so with pure hearts and not because they wanted to help the drug companies. Their’s is an intellectual, not financial, conflict of interest that results from the natural tendency of highly specialized experts to over value their pet ideas, to want to expand their own areas of research interest, and to be oblivious to the distortions that occur in translating DSM 5 to real life clinical practice(particularly in primary care where 80% of psychiatric drugs are prescribed).
The researchers used data from 2006 to 2008 from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, an annual study representative of the U.S. population, to study 18- to 25-year-olds’ drug use behavior. They found that 12 percent of the survey population reported misusing prescription opioids around the time the survey was conducted.
They also found that both men and women who had smoked marijuana between the ages of 12 and 17 were more than two times more likely to later abuse prescription drugs than those who had not. Young men who drank or smoked cigarettes as teens were 25 percent more likely to abuse prescription drugs — though this link was not found in women surveyed. Fiellin said there was no clear-cut reason why the results differed for men and women.
Keith Humphreys, professor of psychiatry at the Stanford Medical Center, said that this association between “gateway drugs” and prescription pain medication was significant regardless of the exact mechanism behind the link.
“Some people believe the ‘gateway effect’ exists because early drug use primes the human brain for more drug-seeking, others argue that the friends you make using drugs as a youth are a ready source for other drugs later, and still others argue that there are factors, like impulsivity, that causes both early and later drug use,” Humphreys said. “Which camp is correct? Probably, all of them.”
More of the same? Really? I think Obama’s safely within the herd on this, but one doesn’t have to go back very far to reach a time when it would be a certain death sentence for a national politician to say that we should incarcerate fewer people for drug crimes. Change may not be coming as quickly as the DPA would like, but to say that the current state of affairs is “same old, same old” is pretty silly.
All of this is mildly interesting. What is was much more interesting was this quote:
Is it a disease of the brain? I asked Columbia University psychology professor Carl Hart, who is also a board member of Drug Policy Alliance. Hart laughed. “A behavioral disease, therefore the brain is involved? OK, we can say that about everything.”
I admit, the addiction-is-an-illness line never worked for me. It leaves out personal will. It sanitizes destructive decision making. It suggests that people cannot get clean without a health care professional.
Art Caplan, director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, came up with the best explanation I’ve heard for the disease argument. People don’t want to see addicts jailed, he said, so they’ve come up with a scenario to spare users from incarceration. Ergo: “The whole drug establishment is invoking the disease model as an antidote to the criminal-justice model.”
I think it goes a long way toward explaining the difficulty in explaining the difficulty in finding any common ground on drug policy.
The question of free will is an important and under-addressed matter. Though I’m pretty confident it’s under-addressed because it’s not empirically knowable.
The suspicion of the disease model is a huge barrier. If there are profound disagreements about the nature of the issue, it’s very difficult to even begin to come up with solutions that address each other’s concerns.
The suspicion of each other’s motives is a huge barrier—”so they’ve come up with a scenario”. This paints advocates of the disease model as disingenuous. We’re manufacturing the model we need rather than describing what is.