Upstream, I do agree with the medication aspect, being it is diagnosed on a symptom basis, not a disorder basis "typically", though not always. You refer to Vietnam era... which is where I believe this is becoming confusing or your basis of data extends. That era from 1959 - 1975 only seen the DSM I & DSM II, both of which only distinguished between psychosis and a neurosis, nothing more or less. That means, all those diagnosed up until 1980 when the DSM III was released where likely diagnosed incorrectly, which the psychiatric community realised and accepted, hence the standard formation and change to the DSM where the psychodynamic view was abandoned and the medical model became the primary approach, introducing a clear distinction between normal and abnormal. The DSM became "atheoretical", since it had no preferred etiology for mental disorders.

I agree that the book is not the first place to go, but that is training you undertake as a psychology student. Within the field you understand that a history is what your basis is taken from, not just listen to a few issues and pull-out the DSM for a diagnosis. I have no issues agreeing that some physicians nowadays do exactly this, but that is due to money and ignorance... being the more labels they can slap you with, then the more pharmaceuticals they can diagnose you with based on the symptoms. A physician cannot prescribe a medication that does not directly correlate to a symptom, yes agreed.

If it where not for the DSM, you would still have the majority of physicians diagnoses PTSD sufferers with Bi-Polar, instead now you only get a minority do that and make the stuff-up.

My absolute disagreement is with the statement Doug made, "DSM is a pile of useless crap" which is a crap statement. Without the DSM in today's evolving state, we would still be diagnosing troops with Bi-Polar disorder or the like.... many would still be dieing instead of receiving atleast the semi-correct treatment the majority of the time. A significant portion of Vietnam veterans killed themselves because they where not treated for PTSD. Physicians started the DSM in that era, they didn't have it close to right though. They got it near correct by DSM III, though again, the book and its diagnoses evolve the more they learn through science, studies and the like. It was never designed to be used to replace a shrink, never... it was designed to help shrinks provide a standardized level of diagnostic ability across the globe and where regardless a person went, the criteria is the same from country to country. That is what the book achieved... which in itself is quite a milestone to say the least IMO that is.