About
MyInvestA glimps into the Future
Changing definitions, changing realities...
Over the past decades, international classification systems for mental and behavioural disorders have changed significantly.
- The old ICD‑10 criteria for “dependence” required a certain number of features out of a larger list.
- Newer systems (such as ICD‑11) use fewer criteria, but each with broader scope.
In simple terms:
- the thresholdat which someone can be formally diagnosed is likely to be lower,
- and more patterns of use can be brought under the label of a “disorder.”
For many people, this will mean:
- they can receive a diagnosis earlier,
- with earlier access to certain services –
- but also with earlier exposure to labels and documentation they may not have fully understood or chosen.
Pressure on systems and individuals
At the same time, health and social systems are under growing pressure:
- limited budgets,
- staff shortages,
- rising case numbers.
When diagnostic thresholds shift in an environment that is already stretched, several things can happen:
- More people become formally classified as having a disorder.
- Institutions may be forced to use shorter, more standardized interventions.
- The temptation to use coercive or quasi‑coercive measures may grow, simply to keep systems functioning.
For employers and organisations, this creates complex questions around:
- duty of care,
- risk management,
- and the handling of “human capital” in a more tightly regulated environment.
Why my approach stays constant
For my work, these changes are important context, but they do not change the core:
- I still see dependence as a baseline condition of life.
- I still treat addiction primarily as a management defectin that baseline.
- I still focus on functional autonomy, not on labels.
However, understanding how the formal landscape evolves helps:
- individuals make more informed decisions about when and how they enter official systems,
- organisations design prevention and support measures that respect both legal frameworks and human dignity,
- and all involved parties avoid unnecessary escalation where other paths are available.
Looking forward
The future will likely bring:
- broader definitions of what counts as problematic use,
- more digital tracking and documentation,
- and new forms of risk scoring in health, insurance, and employment.
Against this backdrop, the ability to:
- understand one’s own dependency landscape,
- manage it consciously,
- and engage with systems from a position of informed autonomy
will become even more valuable.
This is one of the reasons why I invest time in building knowledge structures and tools that go beyond immediate crisis management. They are meant to help people navigate a future in which dependence is not only a private matter, but a structural and documented one.