Feel free to hit play or read the transcript below. 🤩
I'm just processing my thoughts over here. If mental health diagnoses were purely based on research, outside organizations, and people shouldn't influence what diagnoses go in the DSM (Right?!).
But the reality is, like in the book I'm reading right now (A History of Psychiatry’s Bible), they're talking about autism, and when they tried to redo the DSM-5 diagnosis there were issues with it.
You had parents who were part of political organizations who protested and advocated that the diagnosis not be changed because then it would impact benefits - it would impact the resources that they’re getting.
I feel frustrated with our mental health system that a) you need a diagnosis to even get services, and b) what is the validity of these said diagnoses that people are getting when outside influences can impact what's in or out and what the APA approves goes into the DSM.
I wish people would question the mental health narrative we're being sold because at the end of the day, these diagnoses like, what's the validity of them? You know, what does the research look like?
Why can outside organizations protest and get mad and create an uproar, and then the DSM task force/APA backpedal, and they try to decide, “Okay, are we gonna put this in the DSM? Are we not? Are we gonna change the criteria?”
No, bro. If you’re going to medicate somebody and if you’re going to treat somebody for a mental health diagnosis, put research behind it. Put empirical evidence behind it.
Stop letting outside organizations influence it, and if you want to allow them to influence then stop requiring people to have a diagnosis to access services.
Literally makes me crazy.
I'd love to hear your thoughts on this. Please share them in the comments below. 👇🏼
P.S. Still not sure why my video uploads looking like I used a filter. 😤
Share this post