Thanks Don. I just want to add a little clarification on my point. While I very much do agree with you about the demeaning/confining nature of psychological diagnoses and labels (and I was planning to write a piece about this), I also recognize that there can be value in having a common diagnostic language through which to describe patient behaviors, experiences and feelings. I also acknowledge that the DSM-V is the current standard industry framework through which diagnoses are made and discussed.

My view is that these diagnostic labels are generalized categories/groupings that should be used for rough guidance and to identify potential treatment options, but that client-level evaluation of each individual's unique life context and social ecosystem are what should ultimately be used to determine how therapists work with clients. One of the many problems with the DSM-V is that it can be viewed as a rigid, all-inclusive manual that psychologists can use as a crutch and to excuse themselves from critical thought.

The DSM is really a living diagnostic tool that is entirely contingent upon social norms and conventions. As simple examples I'm sure you're familiar with, homosexuality was described as a disorder for quite a long time. Even depression following the loss of a family member is pathologized if it lasts for longer than an "agreed upon" period of time, which has changed several times.