If you're sad, you're clinically sick, says DSM-V psychiatry manual (and you need chemical treatment)

Monday, December 24, 2012 by: J. D. Heyes
Tags: DSM-V, psychiatry manual, chemical treatment

eTrust Pro Certified

Most Viewed Articles
Popular on Facebook
CDC issues flu vaccine apology: this year's vaccine doesn't work!
The five biggest lies about Ebola being pushed by government and mass media
Ultraviolet light robot kills Ebola in two minutes; why doesn't every hospital have one of these?
Tetanus vaccines found spiked with sterilization chemical to carry out race-based genocide against Africans
Biologist explains how marijuana causes tumor cells to commit suicide
Companies begin planting microchips under employees' skin
The best way to help your body protect itself against Ebola (or any virus or bacteria)
NJ cops bust teenagers shoveling snow without a permit
Russia throws down the gauntlet: energy supply to Europe cut off; petrodollar abandoned as currency war escalates
McDonald's in global profit free fall as people everywhere increasingly reject chemically-altered toxic fast food
W.H.O. contradicts CDC, admits Ebola can spread via coughing, sneezing and by touching contaminated surfaces
Top ten things you need to do NOW to protect yourself from an uncontrolled Ebola outbreak
Chemotherapy kills cancer patients faster than no treatment at all
FDA targets Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps for sharing health benefits of coconut oil
U2's Bono partners with Monsanto to destroy African agriculture with GMOs
Why flu shots are the greatest medical fraud in history
Governments seize colloidal silver being used to treat Ebola patients, says advocate
Flu vaccine kills 13 in Italy; death toll rises

(NaturalNews) Do you get emotional and sad, grieving the loss of a friend or loved one? Well, if you are one of the 99.99 percent of human beings who do, you may want to think about hiding your emotions because new psychiatry guidelines could classify you with a mental illness - one that would necessarily require drug therapy, of course.

The changes to official psychiatric guidelines for depression are already controversial, as you might imagine, raising concerns that grief over the sickness or death of those close to you will be classified as clinical depression, turning a basic human emotion into a sickness that will no doubt become recognized as such.

The changes, which are contained in brand-new revisions to the DSM-5 - a set of guidelines and standards used to categorize mental illnesses - eliminates the so-called bereavement exclusion. The standard removes the diagnosis of depression for a two-month period of grieving unless they demonstrate symptoms that are self-destructive and extreme. Under the new norms, depression can be more easily diagnosed a scant two weeks following a death.

'This goes over a line'

"Virtually everyone who is grieving has milder symptoms of depression. What the bereavement exclusion did is separate the normal responses from the severe ones," such as suicidal tendencies or feelings of worthlessness, psychiatrist Jerome Wakefield of New York University, who studies bereavement and depression, told

"This goes over a line. If you can pathologize this kind of feeling, any kind of suffering can be a disorder. It's a disagreement over the boundaries of normality," he said. "What kind of world do you want to have? One where intense, negative feelings we don't like are labeled as disorders, or a world where people grieve?"

Those defending the change - which was announced officially on Dec. 1 by the American Psychiatric Association - say concerns about anthologizing grief are overstated. They argue that even though not all grieving is depressive in nature, grief-related depression is not much different from what is considered normal depression.

As such, they say, the exclusion makes it too difficult for clinicians to recognize and treat depressive, grief-stricken people who really do need help.

The change has been in the works for some time. In 2007, a study published in the journal World Psychiatry:

Since the publication of DSM-III in 1980, the official position of American psychiatry has been that the presence of bereavement is an exclusion criterion for the diagnosis of a major depressive episode (MDE). However, the empirical validity of this exclusion has not been well established. As DSM-V is now being planned, it is timely to reexamine the bereavement exclusion, particularly in the light of new evidence since the last reviews of this subject.

It looks as if the "reexamination" has finally come to fruition, much to the chagrin of many psychiatrists who obviously don't find it appropriate.

Not all of them feel that way, though. Some see the change as no big deal.

"I think a good clinician can separate the two," Jan Fawcett, a University of New Mexico psychiatrist and head of the DSM-5 working group that authored the change, told Wired. "We feel that clinicians have been making this judgment all along."

'It's not too late to save normality'

The DSM - the acronym used for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - is American psychiatry's official guide for deciding what is a mental disorder and normalcy. With the first edition published in 1952, it is now considered to be psychiatry's "Bible," used by doctors, insurance companies, the legal system and just about any social institution that formally deals with mental health.

The most recent changes are being called the most controversial ever in some corners of the psychiatry field, in part because of the new conditions cited. Besides the change eliminating the bereavement period conditions like hoarding, severe pre-menstrual syndrome, temper tantrums, binge eating and everyday memory lapses in the elderly have now been classified as mental conditions.

Critics are having none of it. They say labeling common conditions as mental problems requiring treatment is akin to medicalizing the normal range of human emotion and experience.

"This is a societal issue that transcends psychiatry," Allen Frances, professor emeritus and former chairman of the department of psychiatry at Duke University and chairman of the task force that created the current DSM, wrote in the Los Angeles Times. "It is not too late to save normality from DSM-V if the greater public interest is factored into the necessary risk/benefit analyses."


Join over four million monthly readers. Your privacy is protected. Unsubscribe at any time.
comments powered by Disqus
Take Action: Support by linking back to this article from your website

Permalink to this article:

Embed article link: (copy HTML code below):

Reprinting this article:
Non-commercial use OK, cite with clickable link.

Follow Natural News on Facebook, Twitter, Google Plus, and Pinterest

Colloidal Silver

Advertise with NaturalNews...

Support NaturalNews Sponsors:

Advertise with NaturalNews...


Sign up for the FREE Natural News Email Newsletter

Receive breaking news on GMOs, vaccines, fluoride, radiation protection, natural cures, food safety alerts and interviews with the world's top experts on natural health and more.

Join over 7 million monthly readers of, the internet's No. 1 natural health news site. (Source:

Your email address *

Please enter the code you see above*

No Thanks

Already have it and love it!

Natural News supports and helps fund these organizations:

* Required. Once you click submit, we will send you an email asking you to confirm your free registration. Your privacy is assured and your information is kept confidential. You may unsubscribe at anytime.