Grief to be labeled as mental disorder
Jeanwah
Posts: 6,361
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
-
I think this is more of a problem of big-psychiatry and big-psychology, personally. Not to say these fields can't help people and aren't important; but in some ways, I think they've grown too large and they take the place of good friends/family who you could also talk through every day problems with. Further, when in college, I noticed that people at my school who tended to have (known) mental issues were either psych majors, switched to psych major, or went to grad school for psychology. This is just casual observation, no real take away from that, but kinda hints at the inherent issues within the field.
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.Here's a new demo called "in the fire":
<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="0 -
It actually loosens up some of the restrictive diagnosis, which can be a good thing when the clinician is competent and effective. It's a bad thing when you have a bad clinician.0
-
inlet13 wrote:I think this is more of a problem of big-psychiatry and big-psychology, personally. Not to say these fields can't help people and aren't important; but in some ways, I think they've grown too large and they take the place of good friends/family who you could also talk through every day problems with. Further, when in college, I noticed that people at my school who tended to have (known) mental issues were either psych majors, switched to psych major, or went to grad school for psychology. This is just casual observation, no real take away from that, but kinda hints at the inherent issues within the field.
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.
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.0 -
bottom line ... it's got to be about prescription drugs somehow
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 opinion0 -
inlet13 wrote:
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.
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.0 -
Go Beavers wrote:inlet13 wrote:I think this is more of a problem of big-psychiatry and big-psychology, personally. Not to say these fields can't help people and aren't important; but in some ways, I think they've grown too large and they take the place of good friends/family who you could also talk through every day problems with. Further, when in college, I noticed that people at my school who tended to have (known) mental issues were either psych majors, switched to psych major, or went to grad school for psychology. This is just casual observation, no real take away from that, but kinda hints at the inherent issues within the field.
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.
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.
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.Here's a new demo called "in the fire":
<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="0 -
Jeanwah wrote:inlet13 wrote:
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.
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 agree. I basically tried to say the same thing in my last post.Here's a new demo called "in the fire":
<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="0 -
Jeanwah wrote:inlet13 wrote:
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.
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.
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.0 -
Hmmmm... and all this time, I thought grieving was a process. You know, one that gets you PAST moment.
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.Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!0 -
Cosmo wrote:Hmmmm... and all this time, I thought grieving was a process. You know, one that gets you PAST moment.
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.
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.0 -
pandora wrote:bottom line ... it's got to be about prescription drugs somehow
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
Nice post!
That's all right.0 -
Well, when the big bad oil companies can't take over the world, leave it up to pharmaceuticals. Ridiculous.
"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?Pick up my debut novel here on amazon: Jonny Bails Floatin (in paperback) (also available on Kindle for $2.99)0 -
Jeanwah wrote:Cosmo wrote:Hmmmm... and all this time, I thought grieving was a process. You know, one that gets you PAST moment.
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.
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.
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.0 -
Most likely there's some reason for the drug companies to want this changed. If something is labelled a disorder they can sell more pills. :?
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:&&&&&&&&&&&&&&0 -
...justam wrote:Most likely there's some reason for the drug companies to want this changed. If something is labelled a disorder they can sell more pills. :?
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?Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!0 -
Cosmo wrote:
...justam wrote:Most likely there's some reason for the drug companies to want this changed. If something is labelled a disorder they can sell more pills. :?
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?
toenails damn you...0 -
I don't necessarily think that 'grief' would be labeled as 'mentally sick'. Even though it may be listed in the DSM, it is still a set of guidelines for diagnostic criteria, and it may possibly be helpful for those individuals who really cannot get through a loss without some kind of therapeutic intervention (which I don't think would always involve medication). In the DSM IV, a Major Depressive Episode (lasting longer than 2 weeks) can't be diagnosed if it can be "better accounted for by bereavement" (the aforementioned grief exclusion), among other reasons. I think the article/proposal is saying that the grief exclusion clause would be removed from the diagnostic criteria for a major depressive episode, not a major depressive disorder. (I may be misunderstanding it). Maybe it's for insurance purposes?? Idk.0
-
EmBleve wrote:I don't necessarily think that 'grief' would be labeled as 'mentally sick'. Even though it may be listed in the DSM, it is still a set of guidelines for diagnostic criteria, and it may possibly be helpful for those individuals who really cannot get through a loss without some kind of therapeutic intervention (which I don't think would always involve medication). In the DSM IV, a Major Depressive Episode (lasting longer than 2 weeks) can't be diagnosed if it can be "better accounted for by bereavement" (the aforementioned grief exclusion), among other reasons. I think the article/proposal is saying that the grief exclusion clause would be removed from the diagnostic criteria for a major depressive episode, not a major depressive disorder. (I may be misunderstanding it). Maybe it's for insurance purposes?? Idk.
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.0 -
I say just prescribe the whole world meds. This will solve all our problems.
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.0 -
Jeanwah wrote:
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 is a disturbing idea that feeling natural grief could possibly be viewed as abnormal.
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&0
Categories
- All Categories
- 149.1K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.2K The Porch
- 283 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.3K Flea Market
- 39.3K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help





