• Susan Seligson

    Susan Seligson has written for many publications and websites, including the New York Times Magazine, The Atlantic, the Boston Globe, Yankee, Outside, Redbook, the Times of London, Salon.com, Radar.com, and Nerve.com. Profile

Comments & Discussion

Boston University moderates comments to facilitate an informed, substantive, civil conversation. Abusive, profane, self-promotional, misleading, incoherent or off-topic comments will be rejected. Moderators are staffed during regular business hours (EST) and can only accept comments written in English. Statistics or facts must include a citation or a link to the citation.

There are 4 comments on Mental Illness Rulebook Gets a Rewrite

  1. It’s great that we prescribe dangerous and addictive chemical drugs to treat disorders defined by “changing societal norms” with no concrete laboratory testing or a single successful cure in psychiatry’s history. I’d like to see the discussions that led to homosexuality’s inclusion and removal from the DSM.

  2. Homosexuality was removed from the manual due to social pressure, not scientific study. The fact is that the majority of psychologists who specialized in homosexuality argued to keep homosexuality in the manual. There was absolutely no scientific basis for the decision to remove it.

    Contrary to common belief, there is no evidence that homosexuality is genetically determined. In fact, studies on identical twins in Australia have determined pretty conclusively that homosexuality is not genetically determined.

  3. 1. Yes, many times we don’t have strict scientific data in psychiatry, but this is true of other medical fields as well. Very little of medicine is an exact science. You can’t wait for studies to show 100% that a drug works. If it looks like the benefits of a drug outweigh the risks, it is reasonable to try because many of these psychiatric disorders are very disabling and need to be treated.

    2. Just because homosexuality is not likely to be genetic based does not mean it should be considered a psychiatric disease. That’s like saying that most people like chocolate, but the 10% of the population that doesn’t like chocolate has a disease because they are abnormal. While there was no scientific basis to remove homosexuality from DSM, they were simply recognizing that there was no scientific basis to call homosexuality a disease in the first place.

  4. It’s interesting that the last comment, under point #1, used the word “disorder” to defend the DSM, and under point #2, used the word “disease” to defend homosexuality’s removal from the DSM. If binge eating and hypersexuality belong in the DSM, why not homosexuality? More than 4% of the population has been diagnosed with some form of bipolar disorder, and more than 6% with depression. The 2000 census found that only 1.5% of the US population is homosexual (that might seem unreasonably low because we go to BU, but then again only 2% of Americans are Jewish, which would also seem unreasonably low here). Only 1.5% of the population is unattracted to the opposite sex. Unless there’s convincing proof that this isn’t a disorder, there’s no reason to remove it from the DSM. Then again, there’s no convincing proof of anything in psychiatry, except that psychiatrists and psychiatric drug manufacturers make a lot of money.

Post a comment.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *