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