Introduction

Psychiatry is a field dedicated to the diagnosis and treatment of mental disorders. Its role in our healthcare system is crucial, providing support and interventions for millions of individuals worldwide. However, there's a growing debate about the foundational practices of psychiatry: is the field truly discovering pre-existing mental disorders, or are we creating these diagnoses from subjective criteria? This blog post aims to argue that psychiatry, in many ways, creates mental disorders rather than discovers them.

Lack of Consistent Biomarkers

One of the most significant criticisms of the current psychiatric model is the lack of consistent biomarkers for mental disorders. While substantial progress has been made in understanding the biological underpinnings of various mental conditions, we have yet to identify definitive biological markers that can reliably diagnose these disorders.

The Elusive Nature of Biomarkers

One argument against the notion that psychiatric diagnoses are discovering pre-existing conditions is the lack of consistent biomarkers for mental disorders. Unlike physical illnesses, where diagnostic tests can clearly identify conditions, mental disorders often lack definitive biological markers. Even if scientists were to identify specific biomarkers associated with mental health conditions, it wouldn't necessarily indicate that these disorders are purely physical entities.

Evidence

Currently, mental health diagnoses predominantly rely on a combination of clinical assessments, patient histories, and observed behaviors. Biological factors, such as genetic markers and brain imaging, can offer valuable insights and support the diagnostic process. However, these factors alone are not sufficient to provide a conclusive diagnosis. This gap in our understanding highlights the subjective nature of psychiatric diagnoses and raises questions about the reliability and validity of these classifications.

The Cognitive Influence on Physiological Changes

It is well-established that our thoughts and emotions can lead to physiological changes in our bodies. For instance, stress can lead to physical ailments like hypertension or ulcers. Therefore, any identified biomarkers could potentially reflect these cognitive influences rather than representing an underlying physical disorder. This further complicates the argument that mental disorders are purely biological and underscores the subjective nature of psychiatric diagnoses.

Counterargument and Rebuttal

Although there has been progress in identifying biological factors associated with mental disorders, this progress has not reached a point where we can rely solely on biological evidence for diagnosis. The continued reliance on subjective assessments suggests that mental disorders, as defined by psychiatry, may not be inherent conditions but rather constructs developed through clinical observations and interpretations.

Historical Context and Shifts in Diagnostic Criteria

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is the cornerstone of psychiatric diagnosis. However, the criteria for diagnosing various mental disorders have undergone significant changes over time, which indicates that these criteria are not as fixed and objective as they might seem.

Evidence

Consider the following examples:

 Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD): In the DSM-5, separate diagnoses like Autistic Disorder, Asperger’s Disorder, and Pervasive Developmental Disorder-Not Otherwise Specified (PDD-NOS) were merged into a single diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder.

Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD): The DSM-5 expanded the criteria to include how symptoms present in older adolescents and adults and changed the age of onset from 7 to 12 years.

Bipolar Disorder: The criteria have been refined to distinguish it better from Major Depressive Disorder and include mixed features.

Major Depressive Disorder: The DSM-5 removed the bereavement exclusion, which previously excluded individuals from being diagnosed if they were within two months of losing a loved one.

Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD): The criteria were updated to include a broader range of traumatic events and separate the symptoms into four clusters: re-experiencing, avoidance, negative cognitions and mood, and arousal.

Counterargument and Rebuttal

While proponents argue that these changes reflect a growing understanding and refinement of mental health disorders, the frequent updates also reveal the arbitrary and evolving nature of psychiatric criteria. If these disorders were truly objective entities, the criteria for their diagnosis would remain consistent over time.

Influence of Pharmaceutical Companies

Pharmaceutical companies have had a notable influence on the expansion of diagnostic criteria for mental disorders, often resulting in the inclusion of a broader subset of the population.

Evidence

Pharmaceutical companies benefit from having more individuals diagnosed with mental disorders, as this expands their market for medications. For example:

 ADHD: The expansion of diagnostic criteria in the DSM-5 coincides with an increase in the prescription of stimulant medications for both children and adults.

Bipolar Disorder: Broader diagnostic criteria have led to an increase in the prescription of mood stabilizers and antipsychotic medications.

Depressive Disorders: The removal of the bereavement exclusion has enabled more individuals to be diagnosed with Major Depressive Disorder, thus increasing the market for antidepressants.

Counterargument and Rebuttal

Critics may argue that pharmaceutical companies are merely responding to a genuine need for treatment among a broader population. However, the alignment of expanded diagnostic criteria with increased medication prescriptions raises ethical concerns about the motives behind these changes. It suggests that the expansion of diagnostic criteria may be driven more by financial incentives than by scientific evidence and clinical necessity.

 Creation of Diagnostic Criteria

The process of diagnosing mental disorders began with the creation of diagnostic criteria, which implies that the first diagnoses were based on subjective interpretations and observations rather than objective discoveries.

Evidence

Before the first person could be diagnosed with a mental disorder, there had to be an initial conceptual framework to identify and categorize the disorder. This framework, formed by clinicians, was inherently subjective and based on observed behaviors and clinical judgments. Thus, the foundations of psychiatric diagnosis lie in the creation of concepts and criteria that did not exist beforehand.

 Counterargument and Rebuttal

Some may argue that this process is part of the natural evolution of scientific understanding. However, the initial step of creating diagnostic criteria was an inherently subjective act. The fact that mental disorders were identified and labeled based on human judgment suggests that these disorders are constructs shaped by cultural and historical contexts, rather than discovered entities existing independently of our perceptions.

 Conclusion

In conclusion, the argument that psychiatry creates mental disorders rather than discovers them is supported by the lack of consistent biomarkers, the evolving diagnostic criteria, the influence of pharmaceutical companies, and the subjective nature of the initial creation of diagnostic frameworks. While the field of psychiatry has made significant contributions to mental health care, it is essential to critically examine the foundations of psychiatric diagnoses to understand better their implications and limitations. Future research should strive to bridge the gap between subjective clinical assessments and objective biological evidence, ensuring that our understanding of mental health is both accurate and comprehensive.

Download your FREE PDF, "The Top Three Myths about Autism and the Path to Spiritual Wellness for Autistic Adults". It's your roadmap to Ultimate Divergence.