I read the article by Dr Frances and was impressed by its intelligence. I then read the response by the APA in the person of Dr Schatzberg et al. I was shocked by its sleazy attack on Dr Frances’ integrity. Dr Frances was accused of arguing because of anticipated personal financial gain. The accusation that Dr Frances was arguing ad hominem was the pot calling the kettle black.
The whole business of never-ending updates and changes to our diagnoses—whether paradigm-shifting or minor—should remind those of us who need reminding how primitive is our knowledge in our specialty.
Dr Frances seems more aware of this than Dr Schatzberg et al.
Arnold Knepfer, MD
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I don't know about personal gain, but how much does APA stand to make from sales of a new DSM?
ReplyDeleteWell said Dr. Knepfer, our knowledge is primitive and ever changing/expanding. And, as a profession we seem unable or unwilling to remember we are an organisim studying itself and thus biased.
ReplyDelete