Abstract
Using the methods of philosophical analysis, we provide a rejoinder to R. L. Spitzer's (2001) response to our own consideration of the DSMs first published in 1994. Then as now, our major contention has been that the DSM contents and process have been insufficiently explicit in their various value commitments, choices, and decisions. Spitzer raises four major points in his commentary, concerning our claims about the "value naivete" of past DSMs, his contention that the goals of DSM-III and III-R were not "inherently" in conflict, about our allegations of the DSM architects preferring reliability over validity, and various DSM critics' failure to offer a viable alternative to the DSMs. We address each of Spitzer's main points in turn, appealing to Spitzer's own work while acknowledging his leadership role in addressing value issues in mental disorder classification.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
