American Psychiatric Association’s DSM 5 draft is now available for review

The draft of the APA Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, 5th edition is now available for review and comment.  

A Message from the DSM-5 Task Force Chairs

Dear Reader,

Welcome to the DSM-5 Development Web site.  This site provides information culminated from over 10 years of revision activities, made possible thanks to the generous dedication of more than 600 global experts in the field of mental health. 

The DSM-5 Task Force and Work Group members are working to develop criteria for diagnoses that not only reflect new advances in the science and conceptualization of mental disorders, but also reflect the needs of our patients. We encourage you to delve into the wealth of information contained within this site to become familiar with some of the advancements in scientific and clinical knowledge that will assist in making diagnoses more accurate, valid, and clinically useful.  We also hope that this knowledge will pave the way for further research in these important areas. 

Your input, whether you are a clinician, a researcher, an administrator, or a person/family member affected by a mental disorder, is important to us.  We thank you for taking part in this historic process and look forward to receiving your feedback. 

David J. Kupfer, M.D., DSM-5 Task Force Chair

Darrel A. Regier, M.D., M.P.H., DSM-5 Task Force Vice-Chair

Sure to be controversial, the Task Force will accept comments until April 20. I will accept comments starting now and never ending…

6 thoughts on “American Psychiatric Association’s DSM 5 draft is now available for review”

  1. Concerned,

    When do we get to pathologize the APA

    It seems as if you and David already are. Hardly a surprise!

  2. When do we get to pathologize the APA, I think their stance and position on sex addiction and other difficulties that people have to deal with is not only pathetic it is pathological and cause great harm to many people. Perhaps they want the number of people to have to rely on there services to increase in order that they can remain in business. And their attack on religion is equally damaging to many good people.

  3. It will be interesting to assess the political influence a decidely left leaning (APA) organization who has had a history of pathologizing religion (DSM III) as well as pathologizing the general population (lifetime incidence of mental health at 50%…and growing) has on this new rendition of the DSM.


  4. My premonition has become a painful reality: The psychiatric establishment, once again, betrayed the best interest of the pediatric patients.

    In the name of saving children from been labeled with “adult” illnesses they continue denying the presence of bipolar disorder in preschoolers. First (with DSM-III) they manufactured Oppositional-Defiant Disorder and Conduct Disorder to justify clinical pictures that we could not call mood or anxiety disorders…even if both parents had the same particular disease. Now, these “wise guys” had pulled out of their magic bag TEMPER DYSREGULATION DISORDER “as an alternative to diagnosing children with bipolar disorder.”

    Now, in the name of the God they claim to follow, I going to ask this question: How is it that a two-year old can be diagnosed with Leukemia or a brain tumor but not with a bipolar spectrum disorder? How are they supporting this “mental illness shield” conferred by the APA to children?

    I invite Dr. David J. Kupfer, DSM-5 Task Force Chair and Dr. Darrel A. Regier, DSM-5 Task Force Vice-Chair to check my website and what the parents of children with bipolar disorder are telling to the psychiatrist in denial.

    Today, the APA made me feel embarrassed of identifying myself as a psychiatrist.

  5. Nowhere near as bad as had been feared in sections 302.6 and 302.85.

    Blanchard’s idea of having those remaining attracted to a transitioned man or woman (or an amputee etc after the somatic change) being classed as mentally ill has been dropped.

    I don’t think that was his original intent anyway – but could be wrong. There’s been too much distortion, too much misunderstanding in the past, and CAMH’s reputation doesn’t help.

    Diagnosis of GID in children – 302.6 now requires

    1. a strong desire to be of the other gender or an insistence that he or she is the other gender

    That will differentiate those who are what used to be called “pre-gay” from those who are strongly TS – what used to be called “primary transsexuals”. Some may still be included, but to include any child as having GID when all they have is a non-conformance to an arbitrary societal code is, well, crazy.

    Pending movement of the cause of Transsexuality – desire for surgical and hormonal change – to a diagnosis of neuro-anatomical anomaly (where it belongs), and the differentiation between that and Transgender (which may also have a neuro-anatomical cause… but that’s not well evidenced yet…) this is pretty good.

    I don’t think GI belongs as a psychiatric illness, unless the distress caused by “phantom limb” or “lost limb” syndromes also qualify. But since the distress caused by having been a rape victim is in there, maybe it does.

    All in all, it could have been a great deal worse, and is nowhere near as bad as had been feared by nearly all TS groups. IS ones find little comfort though – people whose anatomy was surgically changed when they were infants to conform to one sex stereotype are still to be considered mentally disordered if they object to the arbitrary assignment.

Comments are closed.