Lawsuits
This is About Full Disclosure and Standard of Care. It seems reasonable to think of filing lawsuits for damages suffered as a result of receiving a psychiatric diagnosis, in order to ensure that those who create diagnostic categories and those who use them will be held accountable if they fail to do so responsibly. Thus, the American Psychiatric Association (APA), which publishes the major diagnostic manual, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (known as the DSM), should be expected to follow the most scientific procedures possible in creating or choosing new categories. This is especially important because the APA claims that the DSM is scientifically grounded. In fact, however, little good science goes into this process. (See Further Reading button on home page.)
In addition, each professional who assigns psychiatric diagnoses to people should be expected to be informed about the process by which these categories are created and chosen, as well as about the quality and limitations of the science that was used to compile the DSM. This would be similar to the expectations for oncologists, for instance, to stay apprised of the kinds of cancers that have been proven to exist, the kinds that may be thought possibly to exist, and the quality and quantity of scientific research that has been done about these cancers and about ways to treat them.
One attorney has pointed out that, since many categories of psychiatric diagnosis have not been proven by scientific research to be real, existing entities, any professional who assigns one of those labels to a patient, regardless of what treatment they then choose on the basis of that label (even no treatment at all) may be considered to be administering experimental treatment to the patient without their consent (or even knowledge). If this proves indeed to be a meritorious legal argument, then it should go without saying that ignorance on the part of the professional should not be an excuse.
Furthermore, each professional should be expected to provide full information to patients about diagnosis, including:
In addition, each professional who assigns psychiatric diagnoses to people should be expected to be informed about the process by which these categories are created and chosen, as well as about the quality and limitations of the science that was used to compile the DSM. This would be similar to the expectations for oncologists, for instance, to stay apprised of the kinds of cancers that have been proven to exist, the kinds that may be thought possibly to exist, and the quality and quantity of scientific research that has been done about these cancers and about ways to treat them.
One attorney has pointed out that, since many categories of psychiatric diagnosis have not been proven by scientific research to be real, existing entities, any professional who assigns one of those labels to a patient, regardless of what treatment they then choose on the basis of that label (even no treatment at all) may be considered to be administering experimental treatment to the patient without their consent (or even knowledge). If this proves indeed to be a meritorious legal argument, then it should go without saying that ignorance on the part of the professional should not be an excuse.
Furthermore, each professional should be expected to provide full information to patients about diagnosis, including:
- telling them that they will be given a psychiatric diagnosis
- telling them which label(s) they will be given -- and, ideally discussing this with them and considering any questions or concerns they might have about the label(s)
- alerting them to known kinds of harm that might result from their having been psychiatrically diagnosed
- informing them about the degree to which psychiatric diagnosis, and "their" diagnosis in particular, is supported by well-done and responsibly-interpreted scientific research
- taking some steps to minimize the harm that might come to their patients because of being diagnosed.