Grief after Suicide
  • Grief After Suicide Blog
  • Personal Grief Coaching
  • Training & Presentations
  • Suggest a Story
  • Contact

DSM V CHANGE REQUIRES SKILLED CLINICIANS TO SEPARATE GRIEF FROM DEPRESSION 

3/13/2013

1 Comment

 
I very much appreciate Sidney Zisook's blog post at Scientific American, "Getting Past the Grief over Grief," in which he tells of discussions he had with a colleague who lost his son to suicide almost a year ago about the removal of the bereavement exclusion from the criteria for diagnosing depression in the recently approved DSM V .

Like many who have debated this issue for the past several years (for an overview of the debate about the bereavement exclusion and links to comprehensive background information, see this blog post), Zisook's colleague was worried that not keeping bereavement as an "exclusion" from a depression diagnosis indicated that, in Zisook's words, psychiatrists' "goal was to diagnose every grieving person with major depressive disorder." In his colleague's words,

"How dare they label me with depression, as though I should have been over my grief months ago? How dare they imply I should take medications to drown my sorrow?"
Zisook's reply is a straightfoward summary of the argument that psychiatrists have no such goal in mind and, on the contrary, are not interested in indiscriminately labeling and medicating bereaved people. The change was made to the DSM, he says:
To make sure clinicians and patients understand that major depression can occur in someone who is bereaved, just as it can occur in someone who is going through a divorce, facing a sudden disability or terminal illness, or struggling with serious financial troubles. There are no known clinically meaningful differences in the severity, course or treatment response of major depressive episodes that occur after the death of a loved one compared to those occurring in any other context. According to the best research available, any very stressful life event can trigger a major depressive episode in a vulnerable person; [and] regardless of the context in which it occurs, prompt recognition and appropriate treatment can be life-promoting and even life-saving. (Emphasis added.)
This argument seems to me to be the most cogent -- and valid -- reason for changing the DSM, but like Zisook's colleague, I am concerned about how the change is applied in primary care settings, for most anti-depressants are prescribed by doctors who don't have the training psychiatrists have in differentiating between intense, sustained grief and depression, and I wonder if there are practical -- and ambitious -- plans to have psychiatrists, as Zisook suggests, "provide more training and consultation to the other treatment professionals who might see grieving patients."

In any event, this dialogue and debate will be ongoing, for as Greg Eghigian asserts in "The Medicalization of Grief: What We Can Learn From 19th-Century Nervousness":

No matter how we might define and assess it, the relationship between medicine, social values, and prevailing ideals for living is perhaps messier and more convoluted than it might seem at first glance.
And in "Depression and the Limits of Psychiatry," Gary Gutting invites those working in the field of psychiatry to more purposefully include experts from other disciplines into their decision-making process, citing as examples "specialists in medical ethics" and those "from a new but rapidly developing field, philosophy of psychiatry." Gutting also makes a bid for the bereaved to be included in the dialogue in a meaningful way:
We should include those who have experienced severe bereavement, as well as relatives and friends who have lived with their pain. In particular, those who suffer (or have suffered) from bereavement offer an essential first-person perspective.
The DSM V is the "bible" as far as diagnosing mental illness is concerned, but it does not ultimately dictate how mental health care is actually delivered. If health practitioners of every stripe take as their highest priorities compassion, wisdom, skill, and concern for serving each individual bereaved person's singular needs, then we have nothing to fear from the DSM.
1 Comment
Ronald Pies MD link
4/3/2013 07:55:06 am

I appreciated this balanced view of the debate over "grief", the bereavement exclusion, etc. Readers of this posting may also appreciate the piece I wrote recently for Psychiatric Times; however, it may not be accessible without registering on the website. In any case, the link is:

www.psychiatrictimes.com/mdd/content/article/10168/2119420

Best regards,
Ronald Pies MD

Reply

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.

    FREE NEWSLETTER
    BLOG HOME PAGE
    • "After a Suicide" Resources 
    • Directory of Survivor Support Groups


    Categories

    All
    Advocacy & Policy
    Announcements
    Black Community
    Children's Grief
    Community Support
    Death Of A Child
    Death Of A Friend
    Death Of A Parent
    Death Of A Sibling
    Death Of A Spouse
    Depression & Grief
    Experts On Grief
    First Responders
    FJC's Journal
    Grief And Communities
    Health & Grief
    Helping Others
    Holidays
    Men's Grief
    Military
    National Guidelines
    Peer Support
    Programs And Services
    Research
    Spirituality & Grief
    Suicide Prevention
    Support Groups
    Survivor Outlook
    Survivor Resources
    Survivor Showcase
    Survivor Stories
    Taking Action
    Trauma

    Grief after Suicide posts are by Franklin Cook (unless noted). Learn more about Franklin's work in suicide grief support.
    Blogs on Suicide Grief
    • Alliance of Hope
    • Healing Suicide Grief
    • Lala's Mom
    • Our Side of Suicide
    • Mary's Shortcut
    • Loss of a Child
    • Bright Shining Star
    • Speaking of Suicide
    • Everything But the Cat

    RSS Feed

    TERMS OF USE AND SERVICE
    Must be read by anyone posting any content on this website.

    © 2016 Personal Grief Coaching.
    All Rights Reserved.