Another article about Binge Eating Disorder in the DSM-5

Here’s the link:

Whereas I am aware that the antipsychiatry movement is adamantly against the DSM-5, and I can see why, I also have my position on the necessity for change in psychiatry’s view on eating disorders.  The DSM-5 provides that necessary change.

Of course, the DSM exists for insurance purposes, and so the docs can justify drugging us, institutionalizing us, incarcerating us, possibly taking our jobs away from us or our families away from us, and so on and so forth.  However, the DSM can do good things, too.

Imagine: Now, men don’t have to prove that their periods have stopped to get treatment for anorexia.  Gee, that’s nice.  And folks, I’m 55 and if my periods stop, um, I think it’s kinda weird that I’m 55 and still getting them like I’m a kid anyway, don’t you?  There isn’t a dumb BMI requirement.  Let’s face it, the new ED writeup makes more sense.

The DSM-5 might be fucked in some ways, but I think the whole antipsychiatry movement and the “recovery” groups totally overlook ED.  It’s sad.  These groups are wonderful if you have depression or bipolar or you cut or you are an alcoholic, but if you have restrictive eating and resulting severe medical issues, it just doesn’t apply.

Walk onto any ED unit.  It’s a whole different ballgame.  New world, folks.  Human rights is a different story.  Yes, human rights are the same, but we need a whole new subset of human rights laws as applied to ED treatment.  Do you hear me?

Now listen carefully: You sign a lease.  There is the lease, and there is the pet rider specifically for those tenants that have pets.  This is only an analogy.  So there is the main part of the lease and there is the subset of the lease.  Parallel, there are the main human rights laws, the overall human rights laws for psych units, and there is the subset that I am proposing, for eating disorders units.

Is this clear?  Am I such an idiot that I can’t think straight?

So much for antipsychiatry.  I feel that these  psychiatric drugs should never be given to people with ED, or be given in exceptional situations and there should be FULL INFORMED CONSENT.  This means the patient would be made aware of all side effects, long term and short term, and consequences should the patient decide someday to get off the drug.

It is one of my life’s missions to have a black box warning put on antipsychotic drugs, saying they should be given with extreme caution to patients with ED, and that the patients should be monitored for extreme weight gain, and taken off the drug if side effects are problematic.  I believe currently some of these drugs have warnings for adolescents (suicide warnings) and for elderly people (if they have dementia) and some have warnings for diabetics, etc.  I know far too many people who have relapsed or experienced extremes in low self esteem due to weight gain from these drugs.  I fear that administration of these drugs could even cause suicide, indirectly.

In many ways, the advances with the new DSM-5 as far as ED are concerned are a step in the right direction.  Many other changes in the DSM-5 are putting us in the grave.  It’s all about insurance, money, drugs, and control of people who are powerless.  Let’s see how it goes and how long the DSM-5 stays the way it is.





Feedback and comments welcome!