When it was first published in 1980, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Third Edition--univer-sally known as DSM-III--embodied a radical new method for identifying psychiatric illness. Kirk and Kutchins challenge the general understanding about the research data and the pro-cess that led to the peer acceptance of DSM-III. Their original and controversial reconstruction of that moment concen-trates on how a small group of researchers interpreted their findings about a specific problem--psychiatric reliability--to promote their beliefs about mental illness and to challenge the then-dominant Freudian paradigm.
A persuasive and passionate plea from two mental health professionals to ease use of the Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders under their belief that it is leading to an over-diagnosed society. For many health professionals, the Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is an indispensable resource. As the standard reference book for psychiatrists and psychotherapist everywhere, the DSM has had an inestimable influence on the way medical professionals diagnosis mental disorders in their patients. But with a push to label clients with pathological disorders in order to get reimbursed by insurance companies, the purpose of the DSM is no longer serving as a reference book. Instead, it is acting as a list of things that can qualify a patient’s diagnosis. In Making Us Crazy, Stuart Kirk and Herb Kutchins evaluate how the DSM has become the influence behind diagnoses that assassinate character and slander the opposition, often for political or monetary gain. By examining how the reference book serves as a source to label every phobia and quirk that arises in a patient, Kirk and Kutchins question the overuse of the DSM by today’s mental health professionals.
A persuasive and passionate plea from two mental health professionals to ease use of the Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders under their belief that it is leading to an over-diagnosed society. For many health professionals, the Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is an indispensable resource. As the standard reference book for psychiatrists and psychotherapist everywhere, the DSM has had an inestimable influence on the way medical professionals diagnosis mental disorders in their patients. But with a push to label clients with pathological disorders in order to get reimbursed by insurance companies, the purpose of the DSM is no longer serving as a reference book. Instead, it is acting as a list of things that can qualify a patient’s diagnosis. In Making Us Crazy, Stuart Kirk and Herb Kutchins evaluate how the DSM has become the influence behind diagnoses that assassinate character and slander the opposition, often for political or monetary gain. By examining how the reference book serves as a source to label every phobia and quirk that arises in a patient, Kirk and Kutchins question the overuse of the DSM by today’s mental health professionals.
When it was first published in 1980, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Third Edition--universally known as DSM-III--embodied a radical new method for identifying psychiatric illness. Kirk and Kutchins challenge the general understanding about the research data and the process that led to the peer acceptance of DSM-III. Their original and controversial reconstruction of that moment concentrates on how a small group of researchers interpreted their findings about a specific problem--psychiatric reliability--to promote their beliefs about mental illness and to challenge the then-dominant Freudian paradigm.
When it was first published in 1980, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Third Edition--univer-sally known as DSM-III--embodied a radical new method for identifying psychiatric illness. Kirk and Kutchins challenge the general understanding about the research data and the pro-cess that led to the peer acceptance of DSM-III. Their original and controversial reconstruction of that moment concen-trates on how a small group of researchers interpreted their findings about a specific problem--psychiatric reliability--to promote their beliefs about mental illness and to challenge the then-dominant Freudian paradigm.
This will help us customize your experience to showcase the most relevant content to your age group
Please select from below
Login
Not registered?
Sign up
Already registered?
Success – Your message will goes here
We'd love to hear from you!
Thank you for visiting our website. Would you like to provide feedback on how we could improve your experience?
This site does not use any third party cookies with one exception — it uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and to analyze traffic.Learn More.