According to the DSM IV, if you experience five of the symptoms below for two weeks or more, you meet the diagnostic criteria for clinical depression.
- Depressed mood
- Reduced interest or enjoyment in normal activities
- Loss or gain of weight or appetite
- Insomnia or excessive sleep
- Fatigue or loss of energy
- Feelings of worthlessness, or excessive or inappropriate guilt
- Indecisiveness or reduced ability to concentrate
- Agitated motion like pacing or hand-wrining, or physical slowing down
- Thoughts of death or suicide
However, according to the DSM criteria, if you have these symptoms after the death of a loved one you are not considered to meet criteria for clinical depression.
It's easy to see how doctors and patients are drawn into believing a diagnosis of clinical depression is necessary. But what determines normal human sadness (and how important is that sadness in life in order to learn and grow?) and clinical depression?
This raises many questions-- Some disagree with the DSM-IV saying that suffering the loss of a loved one and showing symptoms of clinical depression should be treated as such, while others believe that people that suffer a loss of a job, go through a divorce or an illness should also exempt people from the diagnosis.
The second of the two statements has me wondering, though, at what point are we going to exempt people from attaining a diagnosis of clinical depression? If we nix out loss of a loved one, loss of a job, divorce, and illness, we're left with few things that cause depression that many American's experience. On this train of thought we'll end up denying people of a diagnosis that may help them get the support they need. What's next? Disregarding people who are stressed in their jobs? Overwhelmed with school? What about people in abusive relationships? Who have been abused? How come these specific things aren't included in the original exemption from clinical depression?
Before we know it, no one will meet criteria and diagnosing clinical depression will be a thing of the past (though I can guarantee that the power drug manufactures hold over egger Americans and they their doctors will not let this happen, as a study done in 2000 showed that it is a commodity that brings in over 7 billion dollars a year just in the United States).
Is it safer to over-diagnose a mental illness rather than under-diagnose? Treat people who may be suffering from clinical depression, but are on the boarder of meeting criteria?
Are we treating normal human reactions to life? Are these reactions necessary for normal human development?
Many unanswered questions. Lots to think about for my paper. Hope to have some answers here, soon.
