Kritisiert wird v.a. der Schwenk hin zur Definition psychischer Krankheiten anhand ihre neurobiologischen Ursachen (anstelle von symptomorientierten Ansätzen):

Yet, even after “the decade of the brain,” not one biological marker (“biomarker”) can reliably substantiate a DSM diagnostic category. In addition, empirical studies of etiology are often inconclusive, at best pointing to a diathesis-stress model with multiple (and multifactorial) determinants and correlates. Despite this fact, proposed changes to certain DSM-5 disorder categories and to the general definition of mental disorder subtly accentuate biological theory. In the absence of compelling evidence, we are concerned that these reconceptualizations of mental disorder as primarily medical phenomena may have scientific, socioeconomic, and forensic consequences.

Auch wird eine Überpathologisierung normaler Gemütszustände befürchtet (die mit einer Übermedikamentierung einhergehen dürfte):

Clients and the general public are negatively affected by the continued and continuous medicalization of their natural and normal responses to their experiences; responses which undoubtedly have distressing consequences which demand helping responses, but which do not reflect illnesses so much as normal individual variation.

Hintegründe bei Psychology Today