As of next month, the new Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association, known as DSM-III, is becoming the official standard of the profession. Whether they like it or not, psychiatrists and psychoanalysts in this country will need to comply with it when it comes to training, third party reimbursement, hospital accreditation, and research. Even without the necessity to respond to any specific requirements from the outside, the new nomenclature is bound to affect intraprofessional communication at any level, and depending on one's point of view, complicate or simplify our work and life.
According to Dr. Robert Spitzer, chairman of the APA Task Force that worked it out, there is reason to rejoice in the fact that the ambiguity and theoretical implications of DSM-II have been eliminated from the new system. His article in the Winter 1976 issue of the Newsletter gave to our members an early view of the changes and rationale adopted by his Task Force. Even though in the meanwhile numerous readjustments were made, the atheoretical approach of the system was retained.
Dr. William Offenkrantz, co-chairman of the Association's Peer Review Committee and chairman of its Sub-Committee on DSM-III, whose progress report was published in the Summer 1979 issue of the Newsletter, acknowledges that many analysts are pleased that “Neurotic Disorders” have been included in DSM-III as an alternative label to diagnostic categories spread throughout Axis I.
Currently, the APA Trustees have asked Dr. Jerome Lewis of Dallas to edit a companion volume on “DSM-III and Treatment Planning.” This volume will include a chapter representing the views of our Association and the American Academy of Psychoanalysis. Dr. Offenkrantz has promised a progress report, to appear in the Fall issue of the Newsletter.