How Psychiatrists Make Drugs More Addictive

The next edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, scheduled to be published a year from now, is expected to include a looser definition of addiction that will qualify millions more drinkers, illegal drug users, and participants in other pleasurable activities for psychiatric diagnoses. The upshot will be a lot more spending by taxpayers and private insurers on rarely effective "treatment" for these putative diseases, along with expanded excuses for depriving people of their freedom and relieving them of their responsibility.

Neither the current edition (DSM-IV-TR) nor the new one (DSM-V) has a listing for addiction per se. Instead DSM-IV speaks of "substance dependence"  (of which "alcohol dependence" is one variety) and the less severe "substance abuse" (along with "alcohol abuse"). The proposed language for DSM-V collapses "dependence" and "abuse" into one category: "use disorder," broken down by type of substance (alcohol, cannabis, hallucinogen, inhalant, opioid, sedative/hypnotic, tobacco, or unknown). It tosses in "gambling disorder" for good measure while suggesting "caffeine use disorder" and "Internet use disorder" for "further study."

Both the current critera for "substance dependence" and the proposed criteria for "substance use disorder" refer to a "maladaptive" (DSM-IV) or "problematic" (DSM-V) "pattern of substance use leading to clinically signficiant impairment or distress." But while the current definition requires three or more out of seven "symptoms" during a 12-month period, the proposed definition settles for two out of 11. If you "crave" alcohol and end up consuming more than planned, for instance, you may be suffering from "alcohol use disorder," depending on a mental health professional's assessment of your "impairment or distress." If you spend a lot of time obtaining, using, or recovering from cannabis, plus you find that over time you need more to achieve the same effect, you could get a "cannabis use disorder" diagnosis.

"Many scholars believe that the new manual will increase addiction rates," The New York Times reports. Isn't that the whole point? "Unlike many other fields," notes lead DSM-IV editor Allen J. Frances, "psychiatric illnesses have no clear biological gold standard for diagnosing them." In other words, they are whatever psychiatrists say they are.

Although many people are apt to roll their eyes at "gambling disorder," the criteria for this new diagnosis are actually stricter than the criteria for substance use disorder: at least four out of nine gambling-related problems during a 12-month period. It seems fair to say that anyone who meets these criteria has a gambling problem. Whether he has an illness suitable for treatment by medical doctors is another question.   

Likewise for the various "substance use disorders." No doubt many of the people who would qualify for these labels (though definitely not all) have serious drug problems. That fact alone does not tell us how to deal with them: with talk therapy or psychiatric drugs, with social pressure or prison, with assistance for those who request it or with coercive treatment for everyone, whether or not he agrees he has a problem and whether or not he wants help with it. Already users of arbitrarily proscribed substances are more apt to receive a diagnosis (partly because the illicitness of their preferred intoxicant magnifies its hazards) and more apt to be forced into treatment (as an alternative to jail, for example). Lowering the diagnostic threshold will only magnify that problem, pushing recreational pot smokers into the same category as broken-down alcoholics. Furthermore, the "addiction rates" for illegal drugs will increase overnight, giving prohibitionists another reason to argue that talk of legalization is "irresponsible." Once we expand the definition of addiction so that every regular pot smoker qualifies, it will be obvious that we cannot tolerate a legal market in this highly addictive substance.

The Times summarizes the concerns of critics:

While the [American Psychiatric Association] says that the addiction definition changes would lead to health care savings in the long run, some economists say that 20 million substance abusers could be newly categorized as addicts, costing hundreds of millions of dollars in additional expenses.

"The chances of getting a diagnosis are going to be much greater, and this will artificially inflate the statistics considerably," said Thomas F. Babor, a psychiatric epidemiologist at the University of Connecticut who is an editor of the international journal Addiction. Many of those who get addiction diagnoses under the new guidelines would have only a mild problem, he said, and scarce resources for drug treatment in schools, prisons and health care settings would be misdirected.

"These sorts of diagnoses could be a real embarrassment," Dr. Babor added.

I am less concerned about the potential for embarrassing psychiatrists (which seems like a plus to me) than the potential for oppressing people in the name of helping them.

More on the DSM here.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    Man, being a doctor is easy when you dispense with science!

  • fried wylie||

    "use disorder," broken down by type of substance....while suggesting "caffeine use disorder"

    caffeine isn't a substance?

  • Brutus||

    This strikes me as Oppositional Defiant Disorder-ish. A squad of the People's Psychiatric Assistance Ministry have been dispatched to your home.

  • Duncan20903||

    Caffiene isn't on the naughty list.

  • Brandon||

    So is this rent-seeking by psychologists?

  • Tonio||

    Yes. Psychologists, psychiatrists, licensed clinical social workers, and the whole apparatus of the mental health industry.

  • fried wylie||

    It seems fair to say that anyone who meets these criteria has a gambling problem. Whether he has an illness suitable for treatment by medical doctors is another question.

    but don't worry, they'll throw (prescription) drugs at the problem regardless.

  • fried wylie||

    talk therapy

    aka, "therapy". i guess the qualifier is necessary now since everything became therapy.

  • Tonio||

    Calling this crap "therapy" is an insult to physical therapists and everyone else in the (non-mental) health professions.

  • ||

    "...some economists say that 20 million substance abusers could be newly categorized as addicts."

    Jacob, I'm surprised you didn't go after this quote. The Times is already playing fast and loose with categorizations by calling 20 million Americans "substance abusers". Really? That's about 1 out of every 15 people.

  • Rich||

    Hey, FOOD is a "substance", isn't it?

  • fried wylie||

    not if caffeine isn't.

  • fried wylie||

    (i'm guessing since there doesn't seem to be any systematic logic to their distinction)

  • Rich||

    I imagine "psychiatrist use disorder" did *not* make it to the list.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Please. How else can psychiatrists prescribe medication to others if they haven't used it first?

  • guynoir||

    At some point I believe you can be forcibly institutionalized based on psychiatric diagnosis. Imagine how many new "(fill in the blank) disorder" sufferers can be now warehoused for profit in the private prison system....just sayin'

  • Duncan20903||

    You mean the private prison system that houses less than 5% of American prisoners?

  • A. Freeman||

    Just what the medical profession needs more of. A list of disorders that could be normative human behaviors that must be diagnosed and treated. Or is it the Govenment Healthcare agency that needs to spend taxpayer dollars to "treat" the population that will now be declared a threat to an orderly society unelss treated?

  • Ministry of Sophistry||

    The only good part about Americas creeping socialism is that we will be too broke to pay for any of it by the time the Nambly Pambly little pinkos work up the balls to try anything

  • SIV||

    North Korea is pretty good at socialism on the cheap.Consider it a model.

  • Robert||

    Lowering the diagnostic threshold will only magnify that problem, pushing recreational pot smokers into the same category as broken-down alcoholics. Furthermore, the "addiction rates" for illegal drugs will increase overnight, giving prohibitionists another reason to argue that talk of legalization is "irresponsible." Once we expand the definition of addiction so that every regular pot smoker qualifies, it will be obvious that we cannot tolerate a legal market in this highly addictive substance.


    Then it behooves reformers to get involved with the revision process, so as to make dx criteria come out stricter.

  • Duncan20903||

    Sure, why should we expect professionals to do their job ethically without a fight?

  • Duncan20903||

    "I will kiss you quite red and feed you till you are plump. And if you are forward you shall see who is the stronger, a little girl who doesn't eat enough or a big strong man with cocaine in his body. In my last serious depression I took cocaine again and a small dose lifted me to the heights in a wonderful fashion. I am just now collecting the literature for a song of praise to this magical substance."
    ~~ Sigmund Freud

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement