New DSM-5 to classify unhappiness as mental illness

[ninwa]

http://www.theage.com.au/national/psychiatry-bible-turns-sorrow-into-sickness-20111203-1ocmm.html

In radical changes to the way mental health conditions are diagnosed, what was once considered a child's temper tantrum could be labelled ''disruptive mood dysregulation disorder''. If a widow grieves for more than a fortnight she might be diagnosed with ''major depressive disorder''.

If a mother in a custody battle tries to turn a child against the father, it might create ''parental alienation disorder''.

These are among new conditions proposed for the fifth edition of the psychiatrist's bible, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), due to be finalised next year.

...

In the new edition, the diagnosis threshold for some existing disorders is also being lowered so that grief over the death of a loved one can qualify as a major depressive illness.

The authors of DSM-5, however, argue that a bereaved person who is suffering from major depression is currently ineligible for that diagnosis, preventing them from getting help if they need it.

Such bullshit.

[Russ]

/blames pharmaceutical companies

[Camo]

ICD > DSM. So much more trust for World Health Organisation.

[s...]

Disgusting.

"If a widow grieves for more than a fortnight she might be diagnosed with ''major depressive disorder''."
 
For God's sake, we have enough things in the world that make people want to vomit.

This article does nothing but waste the time and energy of the reader.

[funkyducky]

Really, you think they'd be a bit more professional...

[Panicmode]

Disgusting.

"If a widow grieves for more than a fortnight she might be diagnosed with ''major depressive disorder''."
 
For God's sake, we have enough things in the world that make people want to vomit.

This article does nothing but waste the time and energy of the reader.

Did you read the entire article? This was included because currently, those who develop depression in response to a death of a loved one cannot receive psychological help or a diagnosis. The research however, indicates that there is no quantifiable difference between those who develop depression in response to death and those who develop depression in response to other stresses (rape, job loss).


Not saying I agree with this (I don't), just saying don't take everything you read as a balanced argument.

[paulsterio]

We have way too many mental illnesses, honestly, some mental illnesses shouldn't even be classified as illnesses

People who are a little bit different to the norm, people who want a little bit too much attention, what do we do? we call them mentally ill =.=

[Camo]

Mental illnesses are based on normality and abnormality and the best way to measure this is by a normal distribution curve. Anyone outside of three standard deviations can be considered mentally ill depending on the circumstances.

It doesn't really work.

[Sickle]

And from hence on, whenever a student stays on study forums for longer than a fortnight after vce, they will be diagnosed with 'majorly foreveralone disorder'.

True story.

[paulsterio]

Mental illnesses are based on normality and abnormality and the best way to measure this is by a normal distribution curve. Anyone outside of three standard deviations can be considered mentally ill depending on the circumstances.

It doesn't really work.

Exactly, that's what I mean, there's no clear-cut line like there is with physical medicine. In physical medicine, you either have a disease or you don't, in psychology it seems rather subjective, like can we really define normalcy?

[shinny]

Mental illnesses are based on normality and abnormality and the best way to measure this is by a normal distribution curve. Anyone outside of three standard deviations can be considered mentally ill depending on the circumstances.

It doesn't really work.

Exactly, that's what I mean, there's no clear-cut line like there is with physical medicine. In physical medicine, you either have a disease or you don't, in psychology it seems rather subjective, like can we really define normalcy?

Actually the same dilemma exists in physical medicine. For example, how do you use blood tests to diagnose physical diseases? What values are considered too low or too high? It eventually comes back to the normal distribution anyway, and many people who are technically 'abnormal' don't actually have a disease. Generally diagnostic criteria rely on many different factors in order to compensate for these grey areas. I imagine that these new disorders they've identified have long lists of criteria which have been completely ignored by the media which must also be fulfilled to give the diagnosis. It's not like every mourning widow will be diagnosed with major depressive disorder. The criteria won't allow it. At the end of the day, common sense is something that is relied a lot upon in Medicine, and the doctor themselves won't throw diagnoses around if they don't believe it makes any sense or if it won't affect management in any way.

[WhoTookMyUsername]

but you can have mild etc. etc. or be careful or you'll develop etc. etc. your BP is a little bit high, gets worse and youll have mild hypertension etc. etc.

I think what Camo's saying is that a sad person is not "mildly mentally ill" as an overweight person is "mildly obese"

[Camo]

A sad person can't be said to have major depression.

Going with what Shinny is saying. Its the same point, I can't explain things.

[Russ]

Shinny's saying that just as psychiatric illnesses have arbitrary divisions, some "physical" illnesses have the same divisions (dyslipidaemia, hypertension, insulin resistance etc.)