Department of Psychiatry, McGill University.
Personal Disord. 2013 Oct;4(4):377-8. doi: 10.1037/per0000046.
Comments on an article by Gunderson (see record 2013-45025-012). Gunderson's article describes how the process of revision for the personality disorder (PD) section of DSM-5 created opposition and missed a real opportunity for useful change. The current author remarks that a dysfunctional committee came up with a proposal that no one liked, and that was (rightly) rejected in December 2012. The outcome can only be called a debacle. But this debacle was well-deserved. As Gunderson has shown, consultation was minimal, and an agenda was imposed from outside on an unwilling research community. The hope that members of the Personality and Personality Disorders Work Group (PPDWG) still retain-that this proposal, now confined to Section III of the manual, could be the basis for the next set of revisions-is forlorn. We have to start all over again, and Gunderson has suggested some ways we might do so.
评论冈德森（参见记录 2013-45025-012）的文章。冈德森的文章描述了 DSM-5 人格障碍部分修订过程如何引起了反对意见，错失了一个真正进行有益变革的机会。本文作者指出，一个功能失调的委员会提出了一个没有人喜欢的提案，并在 2012 年 12 月被（正确地）否决。其结果只能称之为惨败。但这种惨败是咎由自取。正如冈德森所表明的那样，磋商微乎其微，一个议程是由外部强加给一个不情愿的研究团体的。人格和人格障碍工作组（PPDWG）的成员仍然抱有希望——这个提案现在仅限于手册的第三部分，可能成为下一组修订的基础——这是渺茫的。我们必须重新开始，冈德森已经提出了一些我们可能会这样做的方法。
