“A vital consideration we learn in medicine is that continuing life support for a moribund (being at the point of death) patient past a certain point is harmful to the lives of all concerned. We have reached that point with DSM5.

He goes on to state,

“It is difficult and time-consuming to produce reliable new knowledge; it cannot be accomplished by committee fiat, as Drs Kupfer, Schatzberg and Regier seem to be believe. Dr Frances has mentioned the damage to psychiatric research that several new, ill-conceived categories in DSM5 could inflict. He also pointed out that changing nomenclature and diagnostic standards in the absence of compelling scientific justification will severely damage psychiatric research as well as clinical practice….Moreover, the sloppy thinking and language in the proposed revision will be apparent to any educated layman. The “field trials” and timetables proposed for new categories are laughable to any statistically trained psychologist. The inevitable public exposure of the gross defects in DSM5 will bring our entire field into disrepute and diminish public support for the research we need.

There have been no research advances that demand new diagnoses and syndromes. Despite many intriguing findings, no psychiatric disease can be diagnosed by a biological or psychological test.”

Source: http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/display/article/10168/1576554

Comments from Dr. Dan Edmunds, psychologist, on the fraud of psychiatry’s bible (DSM V)

“The current revision process of the American Psychiatric Association regarding the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual is lacking in any objective science. It appears that the creation of new ‘disorders’ and the re-classification of some existent disorders are fueled by political machinations and not by any true desire to aid distressed persons. It is evident that these revisions are also heavily influenced by the pharmaceutical industry’s excessive involvement in the psychiatric system. Each edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual includes ‘newly found’ disorders, to the point where almost all persons could be fit into one of these labels. With true medicine, we see that new drugs are developed to help with existing, objectively defined, organic problems. Not so with psychiatry where existing drugs are used for subjectively defined ’disorders’.”

Read the full article “DSM V Release Date Changed to 2013”

This drastically changed the process of involuntary commitment, (also known as civil commitment) and the civil rights of individuals in psychiatric facilities.  There have been several revisions to the Baker Act since then.  The goal was to increase outpatient psychiatric care and significantly decrease involuntary commitment.  Yet beginning July 2004 through June 2007 there had been 71 orders for outpatient commitment and 41,997 adults having two or more 72-hour holds for observation in psychiatric institutions under Florida’s civil commitment law. (Petrila and Christy 2009)

Florida has a population of approximately 19 million.  In contrast, the State of New York has a population of over 19 million and in the five years following their new statutes on the subject only 10,000 individuals were referred for outpatient care.  And of those 10,000, only 4,041 petitions were actually filed; and 93% of those were granted. (Appelbaum 2005)

Therefore, Florida’s laws are most definitely in need of reform.  Who are the individuals making these decisions?  Since judges and law enforcement officials are not trained in the field of mental health and a family member or friend may suggest commitment to a health professional, resulting in an involuntarily 72 hour stay in Florida psychiatric facility, where has our civil rights gone?

In 1975, the United States Supreme Court ruled that involuntary hospitalization or treatment violates an individual’s civil rights, “Civil commitment of an individual with mental illness constitutes a significant deprivation of that individual’s liberty that requires due process protection.” (O’Connor v. Donaldson, 1975)

This prompted many individual states to reform their own statutes on commitment.  What warrants commitment varies per state, but most agree that an individual must be a danger to themselves or another.

Per the American Psychiatric Association, involuntary commitment is provided in most states as a quick solution for those who are extremely violent.  In North Carolina, it was found that the majority of petitions executed by law-enforcement officers did not provide adequate evidence for the required criteria.  In fact, in many cases it was noted that there was a marked absence of such criteria. (Miller and Fiddleman 1983)

In June, 1997, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld its decision of the use of a civil commitment process to continue the confinement of sexually violent criminal offenders who are found to have a “mental abnormality” that causes them to pose a danger to others, even if they are not found to have a “mental illness.” In upholding the statute, the Court gave the states broad discretion to define mental abnormality and to determine whether a violent sex offender who has completed his or her prison sentence poses a continuing danger to others. (Kansas v. Hendricks, 1997)

Since then it is possible that the offenders would be found to have a mental illness, since the growth of the DSM (Diagnostic & Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders).  The DSM has been revised several times.  The most current version is the DSM IV.  The American Psychiatric Association (APA) states that they continue to hypothesize [to explain facts and observations] and investigate through literature reviews and analyses.  The DSM V is expected to be released May 2012.  (American Psychiatric Association, 2009)

There is no word of any testing to determine whether an individual may have a particular diagnosis, but it is amazing what has worked its way into the new DSM V. 

Per the Department of Psychiatry at Ambedkar Medical College,

“Starting as a hypothetical disorder, perhaps originating from a satirical hoax, pathological Internet use – Internet Addiction Disorder (IAD) – seems to have stood its ground and its votaries promote its inclusion in both the International Classification of Diseases 11^th Edition (ICD 11) and Diagnostic and Statistical Manual V Edition (DSM V). Goldberg, who specializes in treating people with difficult-to-manage mood disorders, fabricated and posted a list of IAD symptoms on PsyCom.Net. He said it was intended to be a parody of the DSM-IV, the present Bible for the diagnosis and reimbursement for treatment of mental health disorder.’

‘However, this categorization of IAD in diagnostic manuals causes concern among most mental health professionals.’ (G. Swaminath, 2008)

For additional information on The Baker Act see our website: http://www.cchrflorida.org/abuse-florida-involuntary-commitment.html

RESOURCES:

1.  American Psychiatric Association (2009) http://www.psych.org/MainMenu/Research/DSMIV/DSMV.aspx

2.  Appelbaum, M.D., Paul S., Psychiatric Services Law & Psychiatry: Assessing Kendra’s Law: Five Years of Outpatient Commitment in New York, (2005) http://psychservices.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/56/7/791?ijkey=e8489d4a441fe2f76e306b38d1029c2661ea2285&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

3.  Florida State Senate, Interim Report 2009-105 (2009) http://www.flsenate.gov/data/Publications/2009/Senate/reports/interim_reports/pdf/2009-105cf.pdf

4.  G. Swaminath, (2008) Indian Journal of Psychiatry: Internet addiction disorder: Fact or Fad? Nosing into Nosology http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2738353/

5.  Kansas v. Hendricks, (1997) http://www.nasmhpd.org/general_files/position_statement/sexpred.htm

6.      Miller M.D., Ph.D., Robert D. and Fiddleman Ph.D., Paul B., Psychiatric Services Law & Psychiatry: Emergency Involuntary Commitment: A Look at the Decision-Making Process http://psychservices.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/34/3/249 

7.  O’Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563, 580 (1975), http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=422&invol=563 (accessed November 11, 2009)

8.  Petrila, J.D., LL.M., John, and Annette Christy, Ph.D., Psychiatric Services Law & Psychiatry: Florida’s Outpatient Commitment Law: A Lesson in Failed Reform? Accessed November 4, 2009 http://psychservices.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/59/1/21