the problem is that, at least in my case, DSM-V was replaced with an appeal to authority.

when the alternative is "ok boss, you know best" i prefer a list of symptoms where i can argue, "look, almost anyone could tick half these boxes at some point in their lives". at least i can see what's happening.

i am not saying that DSM-V is a rule book that should be followed blindly. i am not saying that it is "right", or that it carries some kind of moral weight. all that i am saying is that any communication - even dissent - needs a common vocabulary, and DSM-V can provide that.

from my outside perspective it seems that it's a tool; that the real problem is some of the doctors. discarding the tool won't improve the bad doctors, it will just make them less accountable. how is that an improvement?