Glynis Steele
Senior Member
- Messages
- 404
- Location
- Newcastle upon Tyne UK
Grief is not a mental illness: The Lancet hits back at DSM-5
- Thread starter Glynis Steele
- Start date
With good snarky remarks about everyone's favourite Weasel in the comments, I am glad to see.
I don't trust medical reporting in the press as far as I can throw it, and I don't trust the Daily Fail to do anything at all, so I'd be wary of believing this article represents what is really going on. If they're discussing categorising grief as a separate condition, then I can't see why someone suffering severely from grief would be classified as a depressive - surely they'd now be classified correctly as grieving, and thus going through something which can be intense but is by its nature likely to be temporary?
I don't trust medical reporting in the press as far as I can throw it, and I don't trust the Daily Fail to do anything at all, so I'd be wary of believing this article represents what is really going on. If they're discussing categorising grief as a separate condition, then I can't see why someone suffering severely from grief would be classified as a depressive - surely they'd now be classified correctly as grieving, and thus going through something which can be intense but is by its nature likely to be temporary?
That's a relief to see Glynis in this age of the psyches trying to bring the whole of human nature under psychiatry - whoops must watch my tendency to routine in making a cup tea next.
One wonders about the whole psychiatric "profession" after this crass stupidity.
One wonders about the whole psychiatric "profession" after this crass stupidity.
Dreambirdie
work in progress
- Messages
- 5,569
- Location
- N. California
It's all about money. The psychiatrists in collusion with pharma wanting to cash in on everybody's emotional pain.
If there wasn't money to be made, they wouldn't give a rat's ass about how anyone was feeling.
If there wasn't money to be made, they wouldn't give a rat's ass about how anyone was feeling.
Glynis Steele
Senior Member
- Messages
- 404
- Location
- Newcastle upon Tyne UK
Absolutely, DB.
Sing
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,784
- Location
- New England
I like how you put this, Db!
It is also about power and territory. Psychiatrists claiming for themselves a huge territory which then they have medicalized, therefore making
themselves more respectable as doctors. Other doctors probably looked down on them when they were only doing talking cures and dealing with the lowest of the low--"mental patients".
Hence, "the revenge of the psychiatrists" in which they turned any form of disliked social or emotional behavior into an illness. First calling it a disorder and putting it in the DSM, then
all those disorders were subjected to a magic trick: Presto--they are all now mental illnesses! And we all know that illnesses
require/benefit from medication. So, this is how the psychiatrists made themselves respectable in their medical field. Further, they developed a lot of jargon and classification to present
themselves as "experts". More "importance". Obfuscation has its purpose in keeping out common sense.
I seem to be going through my "bad list" of why psychiatrists become psychiatrists. So I will end with the last but not least reason. They do so because they need therapy
themselves. This is like, "You teach what you need to learn." A lot of therapists and psychiatrists are of this sort--needier or more disturbed than their patients. I wish them
healing, but not on the backs of innocent people where they will never find healing anyway.
The thing about this whole issue is that it could actually be a better way of dealing with grief than we have at present. The options that I can think of are:
1) Grief-stricken patient is told there is nothing wrong with them, even if they are temporarily suffering high levels of depression or anxiety. This would lead to some patients going without necessary treatment. I believe that at present, anyone bereaved is barred from getting treatment for depression for a year, which could create serious difficulties for anyone actually needing it.
2) Grief-stricken patient is diagnosed with depression and put on medication for life, rather than having the situation assessed as temporary. Besides, since this is situational, talking therapies are far more likely to be useful.
3) Grief-stricken patient is formally recognised as suffering from grief, and given treatment appropriate to grief, hopefully talking therapy as a first port of call (which is not to say that medication may not be useful in some cases). The problem here can be the over-medicalisation of a natural process, but natural processes (e.g. childbirth) can still be highly distressing, even harmful, and benefit from medical treatment. Plus someone who was grieving but not to the point of needing treatment would be unlikely to consult a doctor in the first place, so the ones they see are the ones who probably need help, even if it's just a few counselling sessions or a week's worth of sleeping tablets to get them through the worst of it.
1) Grief-stricken patient is told there is nothing wrong with them, even if they are temporarily suffering high levels of depression or anxiety. This would lead to some patients going without necessary treatment. I believe that at present, anyone bereaved is barred from getting treatment for depression for a year, which could create serious difficulties for anyone actually needing it.
2) Grief-stricken patient is diagnosed with depression and put on medication for life, rather than having the situation assessed as temporary. Besides, since this is situational, talking therapies are far more likely to be useful.
3) Grief-stricken patient is formally recognised as suffering from grief, and given treatment appropriate to grief, hopefully talking therapy as a first port of call (which is not to say that medication may not be useful in some cases). The problem here can be the over-medicalisation of a natural process, but natural processes (e.g. childbirth) can still be highly distressing, even harmful, and benefit from medical treatment. Plus someone who was grieving but not to the point of needing treatment would be unlikely to consult a doctor in the first place, so the ones they see are the ones who probably need help, even if it's just a few counselling sessions or a week's worth of sleeping tablets to get them through the worst of it.
Snow Leopard
Hibernating
- Messages
- 5,902
- Location
- South Australia
The key is to reduce the insurance/socialised medical systems reliance on arbitrary boundaries. If someone asks for help, then why should they deny it because the person doesn't fully match some strict criteria for a mood disorder etc? Likewise, why should someone be locked in just because they needed help at some point in time?