Psychiatry is something of a discredited profession. It seeks to medicalise daily life, assigns disorders or syndromes to behaviours that don't fit with the social/cultural norms. In some cases where aberrant behaviour is dangerous, a good thing.

The DSM is a classification of mental disorders agreed by psychiatrists but mostly through discussion and consensus. New ones are added, old ones are abandoned, like homosexuality was finally removed as a mental disease sometime in the 1990s I believe. (You could do some research on the DSM if you choose. A couple of useful books are "The Meaning of Mind" by Thomas Szasz, and "Cracked" by James Davies.)

Their problem is that as yet, most of these disorders can't be traced to a biological cause and yet as critics point out they medicate people, the medicine affect the biology. That may alter a condition or hold it in abeyance but it doesn't advance understanding of a condition.

Taking just a simple example - someone may feel depressed. That may go on record as "suffering from depression" as if a disease. Even now in the DSM depression as a result of bereavement is classed as a disease (unless in DSM V it's been withdrawn). Clearly depression can arise from many situations but... a disease? And "sufferers" are given some pretty powerful chemicals to deal with it. They numb the brain (in simple terms) but don't treat any outward causes. (I'm thinking about SSRIs that alter the working of synapses in the brain's nerves.

It starts to get political thereafter. The entire practice is supported by big pharma. At that point I have to stop.

As long as you're aware that a psychiatrist will give you an opinion without any biologically supported diagnosis.

They don't deal with spiritual matters or those concerning a "patient's" unique experiences. John32241 sums it up.
.