Are psychiatric diagnoses meaningless?

Perhaps an impossible question above to argue about – against something not removeable? That is, the questions is not possible for those responsible for present diagnoses somewhat (some of us regards as a) hysterical culture and also it needs to be directly suggested how to be replaced before argue -> NB all people who live with such more and more impossible diagnostic stamps, will enter a perhaps even more catastrophe – in many respects including those responsible for dealing professionally with all stamped individuals – diagnosis criteria that individuals are forced to adjust into – to fit into the rule construction by not individual identified response-able!

As the title says, more and more scientist and clinicians dare to consider what many of us gradually have becoming aware of, increasing shortcomings and no only meaningless ones but also more and more hazardously and even dangerous consequences for those targeted!

First, I quote the argument at https://news.liverpool.ac.uk/2019/07/08/study-finds-psychiatric-diagnosis-to-be-scientifically-meaningless/

Then refer with a link to one of the example of critics on the critic =     https://www.technologynetworks.com/neuroscience/articles/are-psychiatric-diagnoses-scientifically-meaningless-as-claimed-326910?utm_campaign=NEWSLETTER_TN_Neuroscience&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=79339353&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-8Oqjivsq3TcQROD50kZI6izy7_nvjHFvOIciwotj5NKEhjPEkUlvdxjTla3-zLmvDb8zFMl09YVrdUU7js-3B5Jfe7LI2yEPB57j7IwA1q3b0zUME&_hsmi=79339353

Below a brief quotation part from the first link above
“A new study, published in Psychiatry Research, has concluded that psychiatric diagnoses are scientifically worthless as tools to identify discrete mental health disorders.

The study, led by researchers from the University of Liverpool, involved a detailed analysis of five key chapters of the latest edition of the widely used Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM), on ‘schizophrenia’, ‘bipolar disorder’, ‘depressive disorders’, ‘anxiety disorders’ and ‘trauma-related disorders’.

Diagnostic manuals such as the DSM were created to provide a common diagnostic language for mental health professionals and attempt to provide a definitive list of mental health problems, including their symptoms.

The main findings of the research were:

  • Psychiatric diagnoses all use different decision-making rules
  • There is a huge amount of overlap in symptoms between diagnoses
  • Almost all diagnoses mask the role of trauma and adverse events
  • Diagnoses tell us little about the individual patient and what treatment they need

The authors conclude that diagnostic labelling represents ‘a disingenuous categorical system’.

Lead researcher Dr Kate Allsopp, University of Liverpool, said: “Although diagnostic labels create the illusion of an explanation they are scientifically meaningless and can create stigma and prejudice. I hope these findings will encourage mental health professionals to think beyond diagnoses and consider other explanations of mental distress, such as trauma and other adverse life experiences.”

Professor Peter Kinderman, University of Liverpool, said: “This study provides yet more evidence that the biomedical diagnostic approach in psychiatry is not fit for purpose. Diagnoses frequently and uncritically reported as ‘real illnesses’ are in fact made on the basis of internally inconsistent, confused and contradictory patterns of largely arbitrary criteria. The diagnostic system wrongly assumes that all distress results from disorder, and relies heavily on subjective judgments about what is normal.”

Professor John Read, University of East London, said: “Perhaps it is time we stopped pretending that medical-sounding labels contribute anything to our understanding of the complex causes of human distress or of what kind of help we need when distressed.”

The full study, entitled ‘Heterogeneity in psychiatric diagnostic classification’, can be found here. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2019.07.005

 

BvS continues;
Below I discuss
(a) alternatives to the above criticized diagnosis situation,
(b) also if this (title) can be extended to most life style medicine diagnosis including diagnosis as a platform for interventions  and
(c) lastly discuss the main critics (in lines with the title)

(a) Alternative to the above criticized diagnosis situation -> How can we then do?
Already George Kelly show in the 1930-ties (Personal Construct Theory vol 1 and 2, 1955) the way I think no one really understood. I will try to write some of how I understood his thinking as well as how some very few, including me, have further try to refine – something he was very strongly encouraged during his last years!

Text is coming …

(b) Is the above argument applikable on life style medicine as well as todays diagnosis as a meaningful platform for interventions and its outcome validation 

Text coming

(d) What about the critics in first link – is it useful to achieve a substantial change?

Text coming …