The petition to reform DSM-5 speaks with the powerful voice of more than fifty mental health associations. Perhaps more important to APA's publishing ambitions and budgetary needs, it represents a significant percentage of the potential customers who eventually will have to decide whether or not DSM-5 is worth buying and using. Displaying its usual 'the customer is always wrong' arrogance, APA has previously been dismissive of the completely reasonable recommendation that there be an independent scientific review of all controversial DSM-5 suggestions.
The letter: "We remain concerned about a number of the DSM-5 proposals, as well as the apparent setbacks in the development process.
In addition, we are increasingly concerned about several aspects of the development process. These are:
We understand that there have been recent attempts to locate a "middle ground" between the DSM-5 proposals and DSM-5 criticism. We believe that, given the extremity and idiosyncrasy of some of the proposed changes to the manual, this claim of a "middle ground" is more rhetorical and polemic than empirical or measured. A true middle ground, we believe, would draw on medical ethics and scientific standards to revise the proposals in a careful way that prioritizes patient safety, especially protection against unnecessary treatment, above institutional needs.
Therefore, we would like to reiterate our call for an independent scientific review of the manual by professionals whose relationship to the DSM-5 Task Force and/or American Psychiatric Association does not constitute a conflict of interest.
As the deadline for the future manual approaches, we urge the DSM-5 Task Force and all concerned mental health professionals to examine the proposed manual with scientific and expert scrutiny. It is not only our professional standards, but also --and most importantly-- patient care that is at stake."
DSM 5 is taking the foolhardy step of alienating its users. Its responses to critics are framed in public relations jargon convincing to no one outside its own inner circle. Instead of PR, we need straight answers to four questions: 1) How can you rush a DSM 5 to print with such low reliability? 2) Why don't you delay publication to allow time for the quality control step that was part of your own original plan? 3) Was quality control cancelled for reasons other than your pressing need for quick DSM profits to meet budget projections? and, 4) Why not agree to an independent scientific review of all controversial proposals to salvage the badly tarnished credibility of DSM 5?
APA's high priced, public relations geniuses never address these questions, because not even the cleverest 'image consultants' can turn this sow's ear into a silk purse.