The APA is a professional body charged with ensuring the psychological well being of the American society. Heath is an important aspect of the human person and therefore the bodies that develop policies and frameworks that determine the nature of healthcare practice should be above suspicion. The evidence brought against APA on the manner in which it developed DSM-IV diagnosis which is basically is an earlier version of DSM-IV-TR diagnosis warrants suspicion on their operations.
Furthermore, considerations on medical principle of nosology clearly shows that the classification of medical disorders is not as easy as APA has made it look. In fact, classification of medical disorders is nearly impossible and therefore classifications made by APA warrants suspicion and have no medical basis. A body charged with the management of the heath of members of the society should be beyond suspicion and the article presents a clearly laid out argument and evidence of possible malpractice.
Therefore, DSM-IV-TR diagnosis is within suspicion especially on the validity of their findings. Questions on the validity of DSM-IV-TR diagnosis bring all sorts of questions on its relevance and usefulness. It is therefore clear that the use of DSM-IV-TR diagnosis is questionable. Conclusion The wide adoption of DSM-IV-TR diagnosis by professionals and research bodies may be an indication of its relevance to medical conditions. Though developed by professionals, DSM-IV-TR diagnosis is a theoretical framework that may be difficult to implement.
Changes in the number of pages and medical disorders in subsequent revisions of DSM standards is may be an indication that it lacks in some key areas hence the need to improve, this is proved by APA’s announcement that it schedules to release a better DSM-V diagnosis in 2009. To put DMS into perspective, the development on DMS-IV diagnosis was basically an inclusion of clinical significance criteria in half of categories which were in need of symptomatic cause thus, what there areas are they yet to address?
Thus the manner and the relevance of DSM-IV-TR diagnosis has to be analyzed by independent professional to ascertain the viability of the code and proper measures put in place to ensure APA’s conduct is above suspicion.
APA (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-IV-TR. Washington DC: American Psychiatric Association. Eriksen, K. & Kress, V. E. (2005). Beyond the DSM Story: Ethical Quandaries, Challenges, and Best Practices. Thousands Oaks: SAGE Publications.