In February 2009, I wrote:
O.D.D. has been a pretty successful life-strategy for me. Review the pronouncements of the Righteous (© Legiron), then do the exact opposite.
Seen via the Intermong today:
Psychiatrists have been working on the fourth revision of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) and, in it, they hope to add a whole slew of new psychiatric disorders. Unfortunately, many of these disorders are merely differences in personality and behavior among people.
The new edition may include "disorders" like "oppositional defiant disorder", which includes people who have a pattern of "negativistic, defiant, disobedient and hostile behavior toward authority figures." Some of the "symptoms" of this disorder including losing one’s temper, annoying people and being "touchy".
Other "disorders" being considered include personality flaws like antisocial behavior, arrogance, cynicism or narcissism.
Well that would be the entire political class, the entire media, teenagers, sportsmen, the police, lawyers, doctors, Oxbridge alumni, Uncle Tom Cobley and all. Find a sweatshop and start sewing straightjackets.
For why, though?
The perception that character differences are somehow a psychic illnesses not only absolves individuals of personal responsibility, but it takes away their unique personhood. It reduces people into subjects that cannot think for themselves, but rather have to be controlled through drugs.
Which brings us to perhaps the biggest thrust behind the DSM revisions: the drug companies. Pharmaceutical companies stand to gain a lot for having virtually every person categorized as mentally ill and in need of drugs.
12 thoughts on “All your branes are belong to GlaxoRochePfizer”
It’s what they used to do in the old Soviet Union. People who defied the State or it’s employees, or who criticised the government, would be classed as mentally ill and sent to psychiatric hospitals for their rest of their lives. The Psychiatric profession has a lot to answer for.
Two shrinks meet in a corridor: ‘You’re fine!’ says one, ‘how am I?’. They’re all nut-cases, take it from me – I wriggled for more than a quarter of a century to get out of their clutches – and finally managed it!
Yep. Sounds like an end game to me.
On a serious note, big pharma are THE most dangerous element in society today. They are ruthless and their victims have no easy label to target them with … after all, they’re a ‘caring’ profession, aren’t they?
So what and who defines ‘normal’ then? Without considered independent evaluation, how can we be sure that they’re right?
Or are only certain (No doubt highly qualified and highly paid) people going to be allowed to ‘think’? Oooo-er.
A lot of this is more of the ‘cult of the child’ expressing itself. Little Tommy isn’t a spoiled little brat, he’s got a proper condition, it’s not his fault, he’s ODD. And god forbid it might the parents fault for indulgences over the years. Can you imagine when these kids are adults? They’ll be demanding medications to keep them grounded. Thousands of unquestioning adults, drugged just enough not to question it, breeding kids that need stabilised with drugs.
DSM-IV came out years ago. They’re working on the fifth version now, which is enough to make me question this whole article. They are planning on putting things like binge-eating in DSM-V though.
Indeed. I knew DSM-IV had been around for ages.
They say the 4th revision is being worked on.
If DSM-I is the original item, DSM-II is the first revision.
Hence DSM-V is the fourth revision. Is it not?
Or it could all be complete bollox. :o)
Good point, carry on!
Mind you, it’s not really any different from the old saying – that the only people who were ‘sane’ were the ones who had been discharged them from the psychiatric hospital because they’d been cured.
(remove ‘them’ from above comment)
You’ve got this so wrong. It isn’t the the drug companies pushing this shite, it’s the fucking psychiatrists. The bastards don’t know how to define what’s normal. Indeed there are no clear guidelines which state when drugs such as antidepressants should be initiated. God knows how many times I’ve told people that it’s perfectly normal to feel sad after a relative has died. We live in a world which which wants happy feelings and docile people.
Lots of women who are pathetic at looking after their kids want a diagnosis to absolve them of responsibility for the rotten child’s behaviour. American Psychiatrists are always happy to oblige. The DSM is a ideological document. It comes about when a society internalises that there no such thing as right or wrong or that there are any such things as normative behaviours.
I do sort of agree. There’s a huge difference between the blues, or mourning the loss of a loved one (or end of a relationship) and the chronic deficiency of seratonin that causes most clinical depressions.
And it’s on this basis that Janet Steet Porter opened her gob yesterday.
But, perhaps she should be more careful to distinguish between the moaning victim monkeys who think they’re depressed, and those who do geniunely need SSRIs long term.