Psychiatrists to brand grief lasting longer than two weeks a mental illness

[AceWheeler]

60. Mental "illness"

As a retired clinical psychologist, one who doesn't like the DSM but who had, at times, to use it, and one who helped more than one person who was dealing with grief in multiple contexts, I know about many of the issues involved here.

A substantial number of folks, including Larsen, prefer to focus on the health care industry (including care providers, insurance companies, and pharaceuticals).

I don't see that much attention to the grieving person. It seems there is a tendency to take the objective perspective (e.g., the social labeling of a person), rather than the subjective experience (there are, indeed, people who feel bad, sometimes don't know why, and sometimes seek help).

There are many ways to deal with grief, psychotherapy and medication (yes, the research indicates that medication alone is often insufficient, AND many benefit from therapy without medication) being but one. I know, and probably most here know from personal experience, what is involved when we grieve. I know that some benefit from outside help, from friends and family, religious figures, and psychotherapists, to name a few.

When, as does happen, psychotherapy (possibly plus medication) is of benefit, heretofor, it was not covered under mental health provisions of medical insurance. Simple bereavement did not qualify for third-party payments. Depression does/did qualify, but it had to go on too long to be diagnosed for those in grief.

This change in the DSM will actually benefit grieving individuals who seek psychotherpy to deal with their grief and want to use their health insurance to cover some of the cost. I do NOT know if this is the motivation for the change in the DSM, but I do know that it is an issue that is addressed by this change.

So there is moreat play here than simply a change into the diagnostic criteria, especially when we include the person seeking help to deal with his/her distress. The issue is even larger than the DSM. It has to do with health care coverage. Our current system relies on a medical model that includes assesssment, diagnosis, prognosis and course of treatment.

How this came about regarding physical ailments is clear and relatively noncontroversial. Many, including me, object to using it when it comes to mental issues. But rather than attacking the DSM, I think they should focus on the larger context and work to remedy that.

Unfortunately, attitudes and biases regarding mental issues (as compared to physical issues) often obstruct efforts to change how we view and deal with human distress and dysfunction. Anthropologists, sociologists, and social and clinical psychologists, have repeatedly examined socio-cultural issues and the alternatives which may be of greater benefit. They have observed ways in which I current treatments can actually prolong and/or magnify negative mental states. But as we've seen here in the US, change does not often come easily, espeically given the socio-cultural forces that resist it.

I, for one, have not given up.