In case you've any doubt that the proposed changes to the DSM5 category of Major Depressive Disorder, particularly as it relates to the bereavement exclusion, were wanton and reckless, please read the below commentary. These are just preliminary and the general research public does not yet have access to those data. But, I - and my concerned colleagues- will publish all the numbers when we can (UPDATE: Reliability numbers here).
Despite all other debates around this issue, these are certainly interesting data... and an outcome of .32 reliability for MDD.
Are you comfortable with that number? I'm not. Not as a researcher, not as a concerned advocate, not as a human being, and certainly not as a bereaved mother. It's getting closer and closer to an organized process of rejecting and remaking this paradigm, thank you Kuhn. As Chomsky said, it's our duty to "speak the truth and expose lies" particularly when the sources of such have hegemonic power.
Again, please read this commentary from Scientific American writer, Ferris Jabr. And get ready to mobilize.
Related blogs in order order of occurrence:
First DSM blog that went viral
Open letter to the APA opposing the changes
My personal experience with a psychologist pushing medications in acute grief in 1994
Our second letter to the APA in response to them
My most recent frustrations from the perspective of grieving mothers facing Mother's Day 2012
First, thank you again for presenting this information as well as for all you do for death education. Jabr's commentary is extremely helpful in understanding just how far off base this group is in regard to the DSM V. I look forward to reading the next chapter of this ongoing and disappointing (to put it mildly) saga.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.medpagetoday.com/MeetingCoverage/APA/32558
ReplyDeleteseems they are "tip toing"