Several sections of the new DSM-5 have come under criticism, including the section dealing with alcoholism.
Alcohol Abuse Disorders
In the previous version of the manual, DSM-IV, published in 1994, alcohol use disorders were divided into two categories, alcohol abuse and alcohol dependence. According to the APA, “The distinction between abuse and dependence was based on the concept of abuse as a mild or early phase, and dependence as the more severe manifestation.” Instead of two separate diagnoses, the revised manual has a single diagnosis of alcohol use disorder (AUD) which, according to the APA, will “better match the symptoms that patients experience.”
Confusion Over the Term Dependence
According to the APA, a reason for combining the two separate diagnoses into one was primarily because the diagnosis of alcohol dependence caused confusion. Most people thought dependence meant addiction. Dependence, however, can be your normal body response to using a substance, such as when you become physiologically dependent on a medication while following your doctor’s prescribed regimen.
11 Criteria for an Alcohol Abuse Disorder Diagnosis
The following abbreviated descriptions are what health professionals use for diagnosis as the 11 criteria of alcohol use disorder:
Missing work or schoolDrinking in hazardous situationsDrinking despite social or personal problemsCraving for alcoholBuild up of toleranceWithdrawals when trying to quitDrinking more than intendedTrying to quit without successIncreased alcohol-seeking behaviorInterference with important activitiesContinued use despite health problems
The craving criteria replaced a previous symptom of reoccurring legal problems due to drinking, which the APA eliminated because of varying cultural considerations that made the criteria difficult to apply internationally.
Critics Claim Alcoholism Mislabeled With New Criteria
According to the new criteria, a college student who binge drinks on weekends and occasionally misses a class would be diagnosed with a mild alcohol abuse disorder. This is part of where the controversy lies.
Task Force Believes Newer Manual Provides for More Accurate Diagnosis
The task force that helped revise the manual claims the new criteria is a step in the right direction toward a more accurate diagnosis of the disorder. “The field of substance abuse and addiction has witnessed an explosion in important research in the past two decades,” said Dr. David Kupfer, chairman of the DSM-5 task force. “The changes reflect the best science in the field and provide new clarity in how to diagnose these disorders.” One of the authors of the previous DSM-IV disagrees that research should be the only factor in diagnosis. “The DSM-5 decision to lump beginning drinkers with end-stage alcoholics was driven by researchers who are not sensitive to how the label would play out in young people’s lives,” said Dr. Allen Frances, chairman the DSM-IV task force.
Needless Increase in Diagnoses
Critics of the revisions claim the DSM-5 expands the list of what is considered mental illness and leads to a needless increase in diagnoses. The most damaging criticism of the DSM-5 came from the National Institute of Mental Health (NIHM), which withdrew its support of the manual two weeks before its publication. The NIMH, the largest funding agency for mental health research, announced that it would be reorienting its research away from DSM categories.
Meeting Criteria Is Not Enough for Diagnosis
According to Dr. Thomas Insel, director of the NIMH when the manual was released, claimed that the main problem with the DSM-5 was validity. Meeting criteria does not go far enough to warrant a diagnosis. He said, “This would be equivalent to creating diagnostic systems based on the nature of chest pain or the quality of fever,” implying that symptoms alone rarely indicate the best choice of treatment or an accurate diagnosis.
