Critiques of the DSM-5: Interview with Jeffrey Lacasse, Ph.D.
![Image](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0FXBj3VR2TcpYYBv-1UPYi-fC7kyJ5nlBvLeQ53l6Mu7jFP6lZivCJnLnAC9ybK-9iqBz3kWDfHYtVlfJIn_dmE4B7wZO0TP2KZAiY-HnXKMgiYMqbnEzPYAh1F0pxahw9b0yriOeUoc/s1600/JeffLacassee2015-200x300.jpg)
[Episode 101] Today's episode of the Social Work Podcast is a critique of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition: DSM-5 . The most basic critique of the DSM-5 is the same critique that has been levied against psychiatry for decades: that it does nothing more than medicalize or pathologize normal behavior. So is it ever ok to say that someone isn�t normal? Are there ever situations where giving a diagnosis is good? As it turns out, yes. And I�m not just talking about diagnosis as a means to finance treatment. Yes, third party reimbursement hinges on diagnosis. But I�m talking about something less institutional and more personal. There are people who like labels, who find comfort in being able to name or label what is wrong. The label draws a boundary around an experience. Labels can even draw up boundaries around a group of people. According to psychologist Gary Greenberg, �[the label] Asperger�s syndrome gave people whose primary symptom was isolat...