There's a big debate going on in the mental health world. Right now, if someone is grieving following the loss of a loved one, feelings and experiences associated with depression are considered a normal part of the grief process. So, a person can experience sleeplessness, sadness, or crying spells and not be labeled as experiencing depression.
With the revision of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), the field is debating about how long grief can go on before being defined as depression. Some want the time period to be short, just a couple of weeks, which would get people into treatment for depression if they continue to experience symptoms. Others like things the way they are, seeing the symptoms of grief as a normal response to a difficult life situation, not an illness in need of treatment.
I'd like to see people get treatment that may help them cope with grief, as one of life's many difficulties. I wish that more people could get treatment (though not necessarily medication) for life's struggles - whether or not they experience a mental illness as classified in the DSM.
But, it's the definition - exactly what qualifies as a mental illness - that's at the heart of this debate. Should grief be defined as a mental illness? And what does it mean if it is?
Does it mean that grief will be stigmatized the way that other mental illnesses are stigmatized? Or could the classification of grief as an illness help lift the stigma around other mental illnesses?
For some people, a diagnosis is a lifeboat, something to hang onto at an uncertain time. It's not problematic, but positively defining, giving context and meaning to an experience that can be destabilizing.
Have you received a diagnosis that helped, rather than hurt, your process of making meaning of your experience? I'd love to hear from you.
Copyright 2012 Elana Premack Sandler, All Rights Reserved
Photo from KellyB. via flickr
