Previously, I referred to a wonderfully informative blog by Dr Dayle Jones. See it at: http://my.counseling.org/2011/08/16/what-should-counselors-do-abo... It should be read in its entirety , but our point of departure here comes from just two of her conclusions:
"I do have some recommendations for APA and the DSM-5 Task Force that would assure the credibility of the DSM-5. I suggest that for mental health professionals to endorse and purchase the DSM-5, APA should take the following actions:
1. All evidence from the DSM-5 Task Force should be (a) immediately made public and (b) submitted for independent review.
2. Any suggested DSM-5 revisions deemed to lack strong empirical evidence by independent review should not be approved for DSM-5."
The DSM 5 reviews of the scientific literature have, with few exceptions, been surprisingly casual, credulous, and biased. A newly appointed DSM 5 scientific review group is meant to review the reviews - but it is working in secret and so far appears to be a remarkably porous filter, having approved Disruptive Mood Dysregulation Disorder on the basis of research done by just one research group for just five years. The safety and credibility of proposed DSM 5 changes requires sound evidence, transparently and objectively reviewed. The current situation does not come remotely close to minimum standards for evidence based medicine.