Fred Bauder wrote:
What the complainer is asking us to do is to conform to
the latest DSM-IV
which is a catalog of mental disorders which the psychiatric community have
determined actually exist and for which they have designated certain
descriptive names. The content of this catalog changes over time, for
example, not too long ago homosexuality was removed from the list. It is
hazardous to ignore DSM-IV since the psychiatric community is in touch with
the symptoms people present and consequently speak with some authority.
However dependence and addiction seem pretty synonymous to a layperson.
It's hazardous to ignore it, but as you pointed out, it's hazardous to
accept it as well. If we accepted the DSM-III, we'd define
homosexuality unequivocally as a "mental disorder" in some cases
requiring treatment; I see no reason to believe that the revision from
III to IV has magically made the DSM free of all such egregiously biased
points of view.
On this particular issue I'd rather take our guidance from Intro to
Biology textbooks, which are a pretty good indication of what's
generally accepted knowledge among the wider biological community.
In fact I'd consider that a pretty good principle in general. If most
intro textbooks on the subject generally say one thing, we should say
the same thing, even if some "authorities" disagree (though we should of
course point out such disagreements where they exist, as in "most
textbooks on the subject.say 'blah blah'; however X says 'blah blah'
instead").
-Mark