Community Forum Archive
The Epilepsy Community Forums are closed, and the information is archived. The content in this section may not be current or apply to all situations. In addition, forum questions and responses include information and content that has been generated by epilepsy community members. This content is not moderated. The information on these pages should not be substituted for medical advice from a healthcare provider. Experiences with epilepsy can vary greatly on an individual basis. Please contact your doctor or medical team if you have any questions about your situation. For more information, learn about epilepsy or visit our resources section.
Should Epilepsy / Brain Injury be addressed in DSM-V?
Sat, 02/13/2010 - 13:12
Should Epilepsy / Brain Injury - TBI/ABI/Sports concussions be addressed in the upcoming
DSM-V somehow?
As some know, there is a DSM-V scheduled for 2013 with a current period right
now (2010) where public comments are formally being requested for.
At the moment, there are literally 1,000s of articles on Google news about the
topic of DSM-V.
http://www.news.google.com/
http://www.google.com/
. . .
Home | APA DSM-5
APA Announces Draft Diagnostic Criteria for DSM-5 · DSM-5 Development Process
Includes Emphasis on Gender and Cultural Sensitivity ...
http://www.dsm5.org/ - Cached
---
If you were to have the topic of Epilepsy / Brain Injuries / Sports concussions / TBI / ABI addressed (accurately,
correctly)
somehow in the upcoming DSM-V, what would it say?
---
By the way, my personal feeling is that there is large gap between Neurology
(the many Epilepsies, for example) and Psychiatry (the ADHDs, dyslexias,
learning disabilities, Asperger's, autism, and so on, for example).
This gap is difficult to understand since both Neurology and Psychiatry say they
look at the human brain.
http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/tbi/tbi.htm
http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/epilepsy/epilepsy.htm
http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/adhd/adhd.htm
http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/disorder_index.htm
---
http://www.biausa.org/
http://www.headinjury.com/
http://www.givebackorlando.com/
http://www.tbihome.org/
---
Apparently the gap is based on a Business Turf War between Neurology and
Psychiatry where too often certain groups want to draw a line in the sand where
one Professional Guild gets all the customers' money, not another Professional
Guild. (Simplified/oversimplified)
Sorry if my view offends some readers.
Also, personally I lean toward Neurology as often being a little more objective
than Psychiatry since Psychiatry tends, at times (my view), to try to convert a
neurological challenge into some sort of muddy, foggy, unclear personality trait
along the lines of: a neurologist would say the moon is definitely made of
rocks vs psychiatry would say the moon is definitely made of cheese.
Again, sorry if my view offends some readers.
http://www.neurologychannel.com/
Your experiences?
Your insights?
Your views?
Comments
Re: Should Epilepsy / Brain Injury be addressed in DSM-V?
Submitted by pgd on Wed, 2010-02-17 - 09:39
The International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems 10th Revision (ICD-10) is a coding of diseases and signs, symptoms, abnormal findings, complaints, social circumstances and external causes of injury or diseases, as classified by the World Health Organization. (WHO). The code set allows more than 12420 different codes and permits tracking of many new diagnoses and procedures, a significant expansion on the 6969 codes available in ICD-9. Work on ICD-10 began in 1983 and was completed in 1992. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICD-10 - The ICD - 10 discusses everything vs the DSM which tries to remove the brain from the body so to speak. The ICD discusses some items which are in the DSM which means that the ICD and DSM do not completely match as how they view the identical challenge. - http://www.neurology.com/ - http://www.biausa.org/ - http://www.headinjury.com/ - http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/epilepsy/epilepsy.htm - http://www.epilepsy.com/
This idea that two different resources would look at the same category differently means that one reference swears, in a way, that a foot is 11 inches long and the other reference swears, in a way, that a foot is 13 inches long which is confusing to anyone who believes they were taught a foot is 12 inches long. Why this goes on in the year 2010 is difficult to understand since it means the ducks are clearly not all in a row.
The ICD and the DSM can't exactly agree on how many ducks there are so to speak and perhaps that could be partially clarified/clarified by the year 2013 (ideally).
The International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems 10th Revision (ICD-10) is a coding of diseases and signs, symptoms, abnormal findings, complaints, social circumstances and external causes of injury or diseases, as classified by the World Health Organization. (WHO). The code set allows more than 12420 different codes and permits tracking of many new diagnoses and procedures, a significant expansion on the 6969 codes available in ICD-9. Work on ICD-10 began in 1983 and was completed in 1992. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICD-10 - The ICD - 10 discusses everything vs the DSM which tries to remove the brain from the body so to speak. The ICD discusses some items which are in the DSM which means that the ICD and DSM do not completely match as how they view the identical challenge. - http://www.neurology.com/ - http://www.biausa.org/ - http://www.headinjury.com/ - http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/epilepsy/epilepsy.htm - http://www.epilepsy.com/
This idea that two different resources would look at the same category differently means that one reference swears, in a way, that a foot is 11 inches long and the other reference swears, in a way, that a foot is 13 inches long which is confusing to anyone who believes they were taught a foot is 12 inches long. Why this goes on in the year 2010 is difficult to understand since it means the ducks are clearly not all in a row.
The ICD and the DSM can't exactly agree on how many ducks there are so to speak and perhaps that could be partially clarified/clarified by the year 2013 (ideally).
Re: Should Epilepsy / Brain Injury be addressed in DSM-V?
Submitted by 3Hours2Live on Wed, 2010-02-17 - 00:38
discussion/987884 Hi pgd, Epilepsy/Brain Injury - Fractured Minds should not be addressed in the upcoming DSM-V. I'm sorry, but my posting seems to partly splattered and partly disappear. I will try to reconstruct it shortly. Briefly, my concern is the introduction of another level in ER, as at new hospitals, after a gran mal, the first test is usually for drugs despite all other evidence (not until after repeated visits is this suspect by-passed). Another additional step added in would be another waste of critical time, such as a "quick MMPI-2-RF", esp. with seizures imitating every sign in symptom. Then the glue from the DSM-V labels can never be completely removed once applied. Headaches counted against you in faking bad http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/health/52793062.html?page=3&c=y But Ben-Porath says single questions won't brand anyone a malingerer; the FBS looks for unusual patterns that suggest exaggeration. http://psy.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/49/4/277 Malingering patients, on the other hand, feign medical illness and manipulate the medical setting in order to pursue specific conscious goals. They do not view themselves as ill and do not seek the sick role for its own sake, but, rather, "act s Turner has called for creating a specific DSM–V category for patients with "lying or deliberate autobiographical falsification."8 Such a category would combine malingering and factitious disorders, as well as the phenomenon of pseudologia fantastica.