Should Grief Be Characterized as a Disorder?

[Atheist-Lite]

Takes at least seven weeks to overcome proper grief with residual effects lasting from one to two years afterwards. These shrinks are low life coffin chasers trying to make money out of others loss.

[Pappa]

Takes at least seven weeks to overcome proper grief with residual effects lasting from one to two years afterwards. These shrinks are low life coffin chasers trying to make money out of others loss.

Everyone handles grief differently and for some it is debilitating. It's also well defined and well understood compared to depression. I think those people that do suffer from it long-term could benefit from it being classified as a separate disorder. Those who go through a period of grief without suffering significant detrimental effects obviously don't need to seek help.

[Robert_S]

Oh why can't they just call it a problem or something if it gets to be too debilitating?

[Atheist-Lite]

Takes at least seven weeks to overcome proper grief with residual effects lasting from one to two years afterwards. These shrinks are low life coffin chasers trying to make money out of others loss.

Everyone handles grief differently and for some it is debilitating. It's also well defined and well understood compared to depression. I think those people that do suffer from it long-term could benefit from it being classified as a separate disorder. Those who go through a period of grief without suffering significant detrimental effects obviously don't need to seek help.

That already happens with entrenched persisitent grief from what I understand. The idea above appears to be diagnose and prescribe people powerful drugs after only a month. Can only be driven by money since it is clearly contrary to our common humanity.

[Audley Strange]

The pharms are missing a trick, they'd make a fortune on a drug that removes original sin.

Between lawyers making laws that restrict everything but the flow of capital to lawyers and their clients and pharm P.R. trying to label everything a disorder to flog more pills to a neurotic public who don't really need them, I'm surprised the majority of people are not sectioned in secure mental health units yet.

[MrJonno]

There is a large range of human behaviour within which people can function in a modern society. Ie get out of bed , hold down a job,, pay the bills not want to hurt themselves or others. I would hope that no one who can manage this would be claseed with a mental illness/disorder (don't get the disorder being a negative its used with physical diseases as well).

However once you can no longer can manage these normal (ie what 90%+ of people can manage) then its time to start suspecting there might be something wrong. Not wanting to go to parties because you don't like being around lots of people or loud noise is a normal shy introvert personality type, not wanting to go to parties as everyone is possessed by demons and wants to kill you absolutely is not.

Someone who thinks god exists and feels them in their lives is deluded however if they don't think god is constantly talking to them and telling them what type of cereal to buy at the shops then they have compartmenalised this delusion and are healthy

[apophenia]

Many of these complaints about "stigma" are made by outsiders who are simply jonesing to make political or cleverness points. And it overlooks a basic fact of diagnosis. The creation and assignment of disorders is not simply an attempt to create short labels to put in a chart, it's an attempt to match people with similar problems with treatments that are likely effective in relieving their symptoms. When a person has a compound fracture of the femur, I hope doctors aren't afraid to "label" the disorder and willy nilly apply the cures for a ruptured appendix, a headache or gender dysphoria because they are afraid to "label" that person. Such bollocks. If there is stigma attached to labels — and note, many of the most stigmatized disorders cluster in the mental health field — the problem lies in the person doing the stigmatization, not the person labeled or the label itself. Often the stigma results from ignorance or prejudice. Removing the label is treating the symptom, not the disease. Such people will still think ill of people who stay home from work because of depression, and make fun of people with anxiety disorders, regardless of whether you convenience them with a label or not. The label isn't the problem. The ignorance and the prejudice is.

Now, with regard to grief as a diagnosis, the obvious question is whether adding the label will result in any improvement in quality of life or treatment of people experiencing grief. I believe the OP mentioned grief that doesn't go away. I'm not a doctor, but I think that is adequately covered by the diagnosis of an adjustment disorder, and rightly so, as it can result in significant suffering and dysfunction without appropriate treatment. But what about ordinary grief, the kind that resolves itself in due course. I'm not sure we have appropriate treatments, or that people would seek treatments if they existed. However, it's not unprecedented that the existence of a diagnostic category preceded the development of treatments. And the flowering of categories, in some sense, allowed treatments to be fine tuned to disorders, ultimately yielding more effective treatments. The OP also speaks of the danger in approaches such as giving anti-psychotics to those displaying early signs of psychotic disorders. This question is notoriously relevant in the treatment of pediatric populations, for whom most medications haven't been tried for either safety or effectiveness, and yet, doctors are applying drugs off-label in an attempt to find some solution to problem behavior. But again, the label is not the cause. If doctors are pairing ineffective, dangerous or unknown treatments to certain problems, it's that inappropriate pairing that is at issue; and removing the diagnostic tools can only make that situation worse, as it will become unclear what was actually treated even where successful. Imagine doctors trying to make sense of undifferentiated case studies — it would set the treatment of psychiatric disorders back a century. And do you really think treatment of hyper-activity in children is going to be changed by discouraging the use of labels like ADHD? Bollocks. These complaints only make sense of those, who, like those who stigmatize the mentally ill, only want to make use of the mentally ill to further their own agendas. If treating early symptoms of a psychotic disorder is dangerous, harmful or damaging, stop using that treatment for that disorder. We no longer prescribe a course of leeches for headaches or depression, and removing the words "headache" and "depression" from the lexicon had absolutely nothing to do with the change.

Ooh! Some people make me so mad!

[Mr.Samsa]

I'm not particularly an emotional person (though I'm angry at this shite) but this idea that you can label an emotive state a "disorder" without understanding whether it is a perfectly natural reaction, almost like an auto-immune response or if it is a neuropathy or a psychological problem.

But the psychologists and psychiatrists arguing for this change do understand that some negative things in life are a natural reaction, and some of these natural reactions should not be interfered with (as attempting to diagnose and treat them can make the situation worse for the individual). This is why with "grief", they are looking at the evidence. The previous exclusion of grief in the DSM4 was based purely on fears of over-diagnosis - that is, they didn't want to try to treat people who would actually be better off without help. However, now psychologists are pointing out evidence that excluding it completely is resulting in an under-diagnosis of people that need help. In other words, there is "normal" grief, and then there is a more intense form of grief which, in some people, can exacerbate and worsen physical and mental conditions. This is because grief is obviously a significant stressor in someone's life, and ignoring it because it's "normal" or "natural" has resulted in a lot of people unnecessarily developing serious, and sometimes irreversible, problems in their lives.

The important thing to keep in mind is that they are not diagnosing or medicalising 'grief'. People get sad sometimes, and sometimes it's good to get sad. Nobody is trying to change that.

To start calling things "disorders" like that is to claim an objective baseline for a mental state. What the fuck did they use for the baseline an ecstasy fuelled gay pride march?

There's no need for a "baseline" or a comparison of what is "normal" to determine whether something is a disorder. The entire mental health field actively ignores what is "normal" because something being "normal" doesn't prevent it from being a problem for someone where they need help (and of course the reverse is true, where something being abnormal doesn't mean it's a problem for someone). A "disorder" is something which simply significantly affects the functioning of an aspect of someone's life. It doesn't mean that the person is "inferior", or "abnormal", or anything like that. It just means that they are asking for help and there have been groups of people with common symptoms which resulted in their collection of problems being given a name for easy communication.

[Atheist-Lite]

I'm not particularly an emotional person (though I'm angry at this shite) but this idea that you can label an emotive state a "disorder" without understanding whether it is a perfectly natural reaction, almost like an auto-immune response or if it is a neuropathy or a psychological problem.

But the psychologists and psychiatrists arguing for this change do understand that some negative things in life are a natural reaction, and some of these natural reactions should not be interfered with (as attempting to diagnose and treat them can make the situation worse for the individual). This is why with "grief", they are looking at the evidence. The previous exclusion of grief in the DSM4 was based purely on fears of over-diagnosis - that is, they didn't want to try to treat people who would actually be better off without help. However, now psychologists are pointing out evidence that excluding it completely is resulting in an under-diagnosis of people that need help. In other words, there is "normal" grief, and then there is a more intense form of grief which, in some people, can exacerbate and worsen physical and mental conditions. This is because grief is obviously a significant stressor in someone's life, and ignoring it because it's "normal" or "natural" has resulted in a lot of people unnecessarily developing serious, and sometimes irreversible, problems in their lives.

The important thing to keep in mind is that they are not diagnosing or medicalising 'grief'. People get sad sometimes, and sometimes it's good to get sad. Nobody is trying to change that.

To start calling things "disorders" like that is to claim an objective baseline for a mental state. What the fuck did they use for the baseline an ecstasy fuelled gay pride march?

There's no need for a "baseline" or a comparison of what is "normal" to determine whether something is a disorder. The entire mental health field actively ignores what is "normal" because something being "normal" doesn't prevent it from being a problem for someone where they need help (and of course the reverse is true, where something being abnormal doesn't mean it's a problem for someone). A "disorder" is something which simply significantly affects the functioning of an aspect of someone's life. It doesn't mean that the person is "inferior", or "abnormal", or anything like that. It just means that they are asking for help and there have been groups of people with common symptoms which resulted in their collection of problems being given a name for easy communication.

If you can afford a good shrink with a consience all well and good. Meanwhile the over-medication of America speaks volumes for general doctor integrity.

[amused]

Our Texas Health and Human Services Commission was recently called the Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation. The families of the patients clients objected to the 'R' word in the name, so it's now forbidden. The State Schools are now called State Supported Living Centers. The hospitals are still called hospitals, I think... But yeah, labels can be touchy things.

[maiforpeace]

Our Texas Health and Human Services Commission was recently called the Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation. The families of the patients clients George Bush and Rick Perry objected to the 'R' word in the name, so it's now forbidden. The State Schools are now called State Supported Living Centers. The hospitals are still called hospitals, I think... But yeah, labels can be touchy things.

Sorry I couldn't resist - carry on with the serious discussion.

[amused]

[Mr.Samsa]

If you can afford a good shrink with a consience all well and good. Meanwhile the over-medication of America speaks volumes for general doctor integrity.

Do you have any evidence that America is over-medicated? Not that I necessarily doubt you, but I always find it interesting how common beliefs are sometimes based on pure speculation and are often contradicted by facts. For example, I've recently entered into a couple of debates on ADHD and was repeatedly told that the condition is over-diagnosed and "normal" kids are unnecessarily being medicated. But when I looked into the evidence for it, it turned out that there was no evidence to suggest that there was any significant rise in diagnosis or medication rates, that there was no evidence that there was a problem with "normal" kids are being treated with ADHD medication, and in fact, it turned out that (if anything) ADHD was being under-diagnosed. There is a significant problem with the identification and diagnosing of girls with ADHD, and apparently there are a number of young girls who need help and aren't receiving it.

[surreptitious57]

Maybe we shouldn t be using judgemental terms like disorder with respect to mental states

I have a disorder and have zero problem in referencing it as such

[surreptitious57]

Many of these complaints about stigma are made by outsiders who are simply jonesing to make political or cleverness points And it overlooks a basic fact of diagnosis The creation and assignment of disorders is not simply an attempt to create short labels to put in a chart, it s an attempt to match people with similar problems with treatments that are likely effective in relieving their symptoms When a person has a compound fracture of the femur, I hope doctors aren t afraid to label the disorder and willy nilly apply the cures for a ruptured appendix, a headache or gender dysphoria because they are afraid to label that person If there is stigma attached to labels — and note, many of the most stigmatized disorders cluster in the mental health field — the problem lies in the person doing the stigmatization, not the person labelled or the label itself. Often the stigma results from ignorance or prejudice Removing the label is treating the symptom, not the disease. Such people will still think ill of people who stay home from work because of depression, and make fun of people with anxiety disorders, regardless of whether you convenience them with a label or not The label isn t the problem The ignorance and the prejudice is

One hundred per cent correct apophenia - your analysis here is crystal clear and bang on the money
I have obsessive compulsive disorder and although perfectly manageable that is what it is - so therefore
have no problem as I already referenced with that title anyway. Do not find it demeaning since it is an accurate
description of what I have. So any subjective interpretation of it is exactly that - but I who have it do not mind one jot
Furthermore no one should ever feel ashamed or guilty at having a mental disorder because it is a condition and not a crime