Oh my.
It seems that the committee is missing the connection between the definitions of specific disorder "types" - the causes that evoke the disorder - and the practical means of treating the disorders. There is a real cause-effect-treatment pattern that can be successfully distilled from the infinitely variable unique human suffering of individual people. It took a long time to create those "types"; define those disorders and it was based on many, many observations of what was common across distinct individuals.
Wouldn't it just have been easier to rate someone on a scale of severity (maybe bigger than 1-10) for NPD? And then note in the diagnosis other complicating, or co-existing issues? Doesn't that still allow for customized treatment? And still respect that the reason humans use "types" in the first place... is because of the commonality of features found across many, many people? Why have "types" become politically, socially incorrect (although this isn't consistently applied)?
As to the value of the diagnosis for us ACONs, et al - I have to say, that the old DSM criteria is very, very validating and becomes a sort of "home plate" for beginning to learn new ways to cope, grow and change ourselves. At least, in the beginning. I did become persuaded by my T, later on - that diagnosing my mom wasn't all that important to how I chose to heal, and deal with my own dysfunctional self. In fact, making that work "all about me" instead of her was a big leap forward... even though it still doesn't feel as if it's without Nrisk!!
Oh well. I guess in 20-30 years, there will be another committee that will decide that the DSM needs to be simplified into specific disorders... again... because the then-current system is too "cumbersome". I just wonder how often knowledge/skills are lost because of a group-urgency to redesign things....