It is well known for mental health professionals around the world but specially for those who are directly or indirectly involved in the mental health field, the main working lines of the new DSM-V have been finalized. As it has already happened before, an increase on the number of nosographic categories has been observed. This increase is a direct consequence of the particular and apparently atheoretical methodology of DSM, based in statements quite far from any psychopathological model. However, since its third edition organized in 1980, the DSM has shown a special surprise: it classifies mental disorders but admits that they do not have a consistent operational definition, thus being very difficult to define what is considered a mental disorder or what is considered normal. Moreover, the methodology has a side effect: comorbidity, the result of applying boundaries that do not exist in nature. This article examines the DSM-V limitations and dangers being part of a movement that questions its methodology and scientific validity.
Josep Moya i Ollén leave a comment