Posted by Ilene on March 10, 2003, at 23:06:51
In reply to Re: For Dr. Bowden: More Q's on BP II, posted by cybercafe on March 10, 2003, at 22:08:13
> If the DSM isn't used as the standard source for definitions of psychiatric disorders, then what is?The DSM is not the written in stone. It gets revised from time to time. This one is DSM IV. The other principal "dictionary", if you will, is "The International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, tenth revision" published by the World Health Organization. Not that it matters.
Here is an analogy: If you ever took biology you probably learned about taxonomy (or systematics). Kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species. Very orderly, right? It is in school, but it's not out in the "real world". First of all, how do you determine the boundaries of the group of individuals called X? What are the criteria for being an X? Is there more than one subtype of X? Is each subtype actually a species? Is X actually a genus?
Taxonomists wrangle about this stuff. There are two kinds of taxonomists: lumpers and splitters. The names are self-explanatory.
The questions about bipolar vs. unipolar, or bipolar II vs. bipolar III, etc. are similar. What is bipolar? How many subtypes of bipolar are there? and so on.
If you are really curious, here is an article about the reasoning behind the latest revision of the DSM (DSM IV):
http://www.acnp.org/g4/GN401000082/Default.htm--I.
poster:Ilene
thread:205791
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20030310/msgs/207899.html