Grief to be labeled as mental disorder
Jeanwah
Posts: 6,363
So I guess when we grieve now, for the loss of a loved one, or anything really, we can now be labeled with a mental disorder. So they're taking the absolute normal process of grieving and slapping it with a psychiatric label. Are we not allowed to have our "down days" either anymore? And I wonder if this may be the doings of Big Pharma to push even more anti-depressants on us... like it's not an existing problem!
Redefining process of mourning – Proposal would label grief a mental disorder
Human grief could soon be diagnosed as a mental disorder under a proposal critics fear could lead to mood-altering pills being pushed for “mourning.” Psychiatrists charged with revising the official “bible” of mental illness are recommending changes that would make it easier for doctors to diagnose major depression in the newly bereaved.
Instead of having to wait months, the diagnosis could be made two weeks after the loss of a loved one.
The current edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders – an influential tome used the world over – excludes people who have recently suffered a loss from being diagnosed with a major depressive disorder unless his or her symptoms persist beyond two months. It’s known as the “grief exclusion,” the theory being that “normal” grief shouldn’t be labelled a mental disorder.
But in what critics have called a potentially disastrous suggestion tucked among the proposed changes to the manual, “grief exclusion” would be eliminated from the DSM.
Proponents argue that major depression is major depression, that it makes little difference whether it comes on after the loss of a loved one, the loss of a job, the loss of a marriage or any other major life stressor. Eliminating “grief exclusion” would help people get treatment sooner than they otherwise would.
But critics fear that those experiencing completely expectable symptoms of grief would be labelled mentally “sick.” Dr. Allen Frances says the proposal would pathologize a normal human emotion and could bring on even wider prescribing of moodaltering pills.
“This is a disaster,” says Frances, a renowned U.S. psychiatrist who chaired the task force that wrote the current edition of the DSM, which is now undergoing its fifth revision. “Say you lose someone you love and two weeks later you feel sad, can’t sleep well, and have reduced interest, appetite, and energy. These five symptoms are completely typical of normal grieving, but DSM-5 would instead label you with a mental disorder.”
http://tpepost.com/opinion/redefining-p ... -disorder/
Redefining process of mourning – Proposal would label grief a mental disorder
Human grief could soon be diagnosed as a mental disorder under a proposal critics fear could lead to mood-altering pills being pushed for “mourning.” Psychiatrists charged with revising the official “bible” of mental illness are recommending changes that would make it easier for doctors to diagnose major depression in the newly bereaved.
Instead of having to wait months, the diagnosis could be made two weeks after the loss of a loved one.
The current edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders – an influential tome used the world over – excludes people who have recently suffered a loss from being diagnosed with a major depressive disorder unless his or her symptoms persist beyond two months. It’s known as the “grief exclusion,” the theory being that “normal” grief shouldn’t be labelled a mental disorder.
But in what critics have called a potentially disastrous suggestion tucked among the proposed changes to the manual, “grief exclusion” would be eliminated from the DSM.
Proponents argue that major depression is major depression, that it makes little difference whether it comes on after the loss of a loved one, the loss of a job, the loss of a marriage or any other major life stressor. Eliminating “grief exclusion” would help people get treatment sooner than they otherwise would.
But critics fear that those experiencing completely expectable symptoms of grief would be labelled mentally “sick.” Dr. Allen Frances says the proposal would pathologize a normal human emotion and could bring on even wider prescribing of moodaltering pills.
“This is a disaster,” says Frances, a renowned U.S. psychiatrist who chaired the task force that wrote the current edition of the DSM, which is now undergoing its fifth revision. “Say you lose someone you love and two weeks later you feel sad, can’t sleep well, and have reduced interest, appetite, and energy. These five symptoms are completely typical of normal grieving, but DSM-5 would instead label you with a mental disorder.”
http://tpepost.com/opinion/redefining-p ... -disorder/
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Anyway...
Bottom line: there's someone who prescribes the drugs for depression and the like. Increasing the number of reasons to go see that someone, in my opinion, is more of a function of increasing the demand for that profession than anything.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
They don't necessarily "take the place of good family/friends", but are there when family and friends aren't enough, or "good" family and friends aren't an option. Some things go beyond "every day" problems, too. A change in the DSM doesn't increase the reasons to see a mental health professional. There's plenty of demand already.
isn't everything now
work 3rd shift got a drug for you!
Sanity is easily found ... just ignore insanity
and grieving is one of the most beautiful parts of being human
it hurts but it is love... it's what we are here for
in my opinion
Yeah, it could be coming from the profession for more business, but think of what this inherently does to society. That we are not "normal" unless we are wearing a smile on our face. I can't help but think that it's trying to make society a big phony happy world because we being sad or grieving a loved one "makes us depressed and in need of the magic pill" rather than working things out ourselves without meds or psychiatry.
I don't think we really disagree on this point. As I said in my previous post, I'm not saying there isn't a need for this career, I just think sometimes people go to them, rather than other "free" outlets. In some ways this can be good (particularly with serious issues), in others (when it's not so serious) it's part of the problem. I also agree that some things go beyond every day problems... but, grief (which is not so serious) is not one of them. Grief is a completely natural human emotion. And no psychiatrist or psychologist will understand the "grief" one is going through better than a close friend or relative that knows the person... sure, sometimes that's not possible, but if it is, that should be preferred.
I think half the problem with society today is that people feel ashamed of normal emotions, and in a sense, this field perpetuates that by providing an outlet "which no one will ever know about". In a way, that's saying your "grief" is somehow something you should keep hidden. To me, that's not good. All that said, I get the need for this field in serious circumstances, or smaller circumstances when you otherwise can't find someone to discuss these issues with.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
I agree. I basically tried to say the same thing in my last post.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
Professionals in the field who prescribe meds are psychiatrists and mental health nurse practitioners (in a more limited function). Psychologists and master's level therapists do not. Unfortunately, general practitioners prescribe psychotropic meds, as well, which I think is a large problem. It's unethical and outside the scope of their practice. There's also a dysfunctional relationship between doctors and pharmacuetical companies who make the meds. It's takes a good practitioner to rise above that dysfunction.
Again, the DSM does not drive business. If anything, actual therapy works against American culture where we "wear a smile on our face". Therapy often involves mucking around in your emotional crap and not walking around in a cone of denial. Back the change in the DSM. My guess is that they made the change was to raise awareness for therapists when working with a client who is grieving to also look at symptoms of depression and if that's a way to go in treatment. Often, suicide is triggered by grief and loss, so if a client comes through the door just after a loved one has died, rather than just look at bereavement, to also be aware of greater desparation in the client. Bereavement can trigger intense depression. Again, it's up to a quality clinician to discern the two. In this case, the DSM is loosening up the deliniation between the two.
I can understand forthose whom can't get past a loss (or whatever) and constantly dwell on it. I can see that as becoming an issue and a problem. But, for the most part... we lose... we grieve/mourn... we move on with our lives.
Hail, Hail!!!
Yeah, and it's completely normal. Mental experts belong nowhere near the rest of us who grieve due to loss. If it carries on for months, sure. But that's in extreme cases, not most cases.
Nice post!
That's all right.
"Antidepressant prescribing has risen nearly 400% since 1988, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). More than 1 in 10 Americans over age 12 now takes an antidepressant, the study finds, and yet two-thirds of those with severe symptoms of depression do not take antidepressants at all."
http://healthland.time.com/2011/10/20/w ... ally-mean/
Maybe people just don't go outside enough?
I agree with both of you. I don't see anyone saying that it's required to seek professional help if you're grieving, and if they are saying that, then they aren't an "expert". Because something is in the DSM, that doesn't mean that it requires therapy or professional intervention.
There is a bias in the OP, which is maybe making this thread wonky.
Ugh. It's bad enough that drug companies can advertise their products on TV with phrases like "Ask your doctor if Pinkpillpoison is right for you." Now they are influencing the field of medicine as far as what can be labelled as an illness!! :twisted:
Like... what the fuck was that Yellow Toenail pill? Remember that one... the commercial of those little gremlins under the toenails?
How did anyone get R&D funding for THAT?
Hail, Hail!!!
toenails damn you...
I don't know, you kind of lost me here.
What I get from it is that the grief exclusion "excludes people who have recently suffered a loss from being diagnosed with a major depressive disorder unless his or her symptoms persist beyond two months." So this is the way it has been, but I just saw on the news last night (which is why I posted this topic) that they are trying to get grief in general to be labeled a mental disorder, without any time limits. It's pretty disturbing.
It's okay to grieve. It's healthy. It's okay to go nuts on occasion. It's okay for kids to be hyper. It's okay to be happy. It's okay. Everyone stop crawling up into people's heads. Psychology is like a 150 year old science. Im actually not giving them to much credit. Maybe its societal ills are the reflection of the plague in peoples psyches.
Eat some more pills the pink elephants will go away.
It is a disturbing idea that feeling natural grief could possibly be viewed as abnormal. :(
I think there's some confusion about what the DSM is. It's not the "bible" referenced in the OP. It labels behavior and thoughts patterns when they meet a certain threshold or criteria. That's all it is. There's no reference to treatment or medications, theory, or whether or not something is "abnormal". Bereavement is already in the DSM because it's seen as a significant experience where changes happen in the person grieving that weren't there before their loss. What's in the OP isn't that people grieving now need to be labelled as depressed, it's just shortening the time exclusion.
If the writers of the DSM are in bed with pharmacy companies, I'd be curious for more info on that. Most clinicians who use the DSM don't prescribe meds.
Normal process becomes a label (or is labeled).
Pharmaceuticals on the rise. (Watch for the inevitable TV ads.)
To be sure, grief is a heavy state of mind, but what are the motives here? Helping people? Moving more pharmaceuticals? Less likely but possible, a publishing issue (I wonder what 2013's new DSM-V will say?)
My experience of grief is that it is real, intense, weighty on the soul but life affirming, an ordered process but one that is reconnecting, earth and sky bound, part of the trip. I'm leery of labels, especially if they supplant experience.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Docs take control and do what is right for the human body ... you took an oath!
But no instead give them a pill make it go away.
I would suggest people read Indigo Children. Makes some valid points. Anyway.
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/nightly-news ... /#46139462
A number of people want a pill to make it go away. Don't want to have to deal with 'reality' or life as it presents itself to them the 'hard' way.
Though it is true for the more seriously ill, that society (to include the medical profession, community, etc.), can't always be bothered to go down the more complex and long-term route of trying to 'fix' deeper issues without medication. That requires a lot of time and effort....
Sorry to hear about you and redrock's viewpoint. There are thousands of professionals in the field that are dedicated to their client's well-being and don't support the medical model stance of taking a pill to make it go away. A lot of people are working with societal throwaways, victims of trauma, and people experiencing the whole range of emotional problems. Now, if society would only do a better job to improve access to mental health treatment. That's a different story than the DSM.
What sign says that? Again, maybe I'm out of the loop, but does someone have evidence that drug companies and the DSM writers are in cahoots, and revising the DSM to increase drug sales?