Patients Are More Complex Than the DSM’s Category System

But there is a deeper issue here: namely, the inadequacy of the entire DSM “one from column A, one from column B” approach. That may make for good reliability if you are doing research, but it doesn’t penetrate very deeply into the subjective experience—the “inner world”—of the bereaved person.

It turns out that this is quite different for the person with ordinary bereavement, compared with that of the patient with major depression. Like Mrs. Brown, the bereaved person often experiences a mixture of sadness and more pleasant emotions, as they recall memories of the deceased. Anguish and pain are usually experienced in “waves” or “pangs,” rather than continuously. The bereaved person maintains the hope that things will get better.

In contrast, the clinically depressed patient’s mood is almost uniformly one of gloom, despair, and hopelessness–nearly all day, nearly every day. The bereaved individual usually maintains an emotional connection with friends and family, and often can be consoled by them. The person suffering a major depressive disorder is usually too self-focused and emotionally “cut off” to enjoy the company of others. Indeed, Kay Jamison has pointed out that “The capacity to be consoled is a consequential distinction between grief and depression.” My colleagues and I are now developing a screening questionnaire, based on these distinctions. (This instrument, called the Post-Bereavement Phenomenology Inventory, has not yet been validated. A preliminary version of the PBPI appears here)

The bereavement exclusion was developed with good intentions, following seminal studies in the 1970s by Dr. Paula Clayton showing that many bereaved patients will have some depressive symptoms for weeks or months after the loss. But there is no conclusive evidence, based on controlled studies, that bereaved persons meeting modern-day MDD criteria have markedly different outcomes from patients with “standard” (non-bereaved) MDD.

In the past two decades, most of the clinical outcome data show that if you meet full criteria for MDD, it doesn’t make much difference whether the depression did or did not follow a recent loss, or came “out of the blue:” your symptoms, level of impairment, ability to function, and response to treatment will be roughly comparable. Furthermore, the current DSM features designed to distinguish bereavement from MDD — suicidal feelings, intense guilt, etc. — appear to have little predictive value, and may be present in roughly equal numbers in both bereaved and non-bereaved MDD patients.

The Bereavement Exclusion Should be Removed

In my view, it was an error to have created the bereavement exclusion in the first place — a bit like implanting a defective valve in a patient with heart disease. (Note that the “ICD” system — the International Classification of Diseases, used throughout the world — does not use a formal bereavement exclusion rule). Those who argue for maintaining the bereavement exclusion claim that this is a “conservative” position that will prevent over-diagnosis and overmedication.

But my colleague, Dr. Sidney Zisook, and I believe that there is no sound, scientific basis for the bereavement exclusion; that it interferes with the recognition and treatment of major depression, a potentially lethal illness; and that the potential problem of overmedication is one we should deal with through proper medical education, especially of primary care doctors — not through preemptive jiggering with our diagnostic criteria. In short, I believe that the “defective valve” needs to be removed.

Some critics who want to retain the bereavement exclusion focus on the DSM-5 draft’s two-week minimum duration criterion for a MDE. They argue that, in the case of the bereaved patient, the DSM-5 framers “want to put a two-week time limit” on grief. This is really a distortion, as we saw in the case of Mrs. Brown. To be sure: the very brief, two-week period is usually not enough time to permit a confident diagnosis of major depression, in my view — after bereavement or any other major loss, such as a recent divorce.

But the two-week issue is distinct from that of eliminating the bereavement exclusion, and only muddies the waters of the debate. Keeping the bereavement exclusion in DSM-5 won’t fix the general problem of the two-week criterion — that needs to be taken up by DSM-5 as a separate issue.

At the same time, I strongly believe the DSM-5 should get rid of the arbitrary and misleading two-month guideline for normal bereavement. Grief, and its attendant anguish, sometimes lasts months or even years. By itself, there is nothing “disordered” in prolonged grief, if the person is largely able to function and flourish in life.

Ideally, acute grief gradually becomes integrated into the larger fabric of the person’s life — so-called “integrated grief.” Most grieving individuals will do fine with “tincture of time” and the love and support of friends and family. Some who develop the syndrome of “complicated grief,” however, may need professional help. And when recent bereavement is accompanied by the features of a major depressive disorder, professional attention is required to determine if treatment is needed. Sometimes, very mild depressive episodes resolve without formal treatment. If not, mild-to-moderate depression usually responds to psychotherapy. More severe cases may require medication or “combined” treatment (medication and talk therapy).

We should never assume that bereavement “immunizes” the individual against a bout of major depression. We don’t want to “medicalize” ordinary grief. But neither should we “normalize” serious depression following a major loss.

 

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Dr. Sidney Zisook for comments on an early draft of this commentary, and to Dr. Katherine Shear for her seminal work on complicated grief.

References

Carey, B. Grief could join list of disorders. Accessed January 27, 2012.

Grohol JM. Will depression include normal grieving too? Accessed January 27, 2012.

Pies R. The two worlds of grief and depression Accessed January 27, 2012.

Zisook S, Reynolds CF 3rd, Pies R, et al. Bereavement, complicated grief, and DSM, part 1: depression. J Clin Psychiatry 2010;71:955-956.

Zisook S, Simon NM, Reynolds CF 3rd, et al. Bereavement, complicated grief, and DSM, part 2: complicated grief. J Clin Psychiatry 2010;71:1097-1098.

Pies R. Why psychiatry needs to scrap the DSM system: an immodest proposal. Accessed January 27, 2012.

Brooks M: Lancet weighs in on DSM-5 Bereavement Exclusion. Medscape

Shear MK, Simon N, Wall M et al Complicated grief and related bereavement issues for DSM-5. Depression & Anxiety. 2011 Feb;28(2):103-17. doi: 10.1002/da.20780.

Zisook S, Kendler KS. Is bereavement-related depression different than non-bereavement-related depression? Psychological Medicine 2007; 37(6):779-794.

Zisook S, Reynolds CF, III, Pies R, et al. Bereavement, Complicated Grief, and DSM, Part 1: Depression. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 2010; 71(7):955-956.

The Lancet. Living with grief. The Lancet 2012; 379: 589

Pies R: The anatomy of sorrow: a spiritual, phenomenological, and neurological perspective. Philos Ethics Humanit Med. 2008 Jun 17;3(1):17

Corruble E, Falissard B, Gorwood P. Is DSM-IV bereavement exclusion for major depression relevant to treatment response? A case-control, prospective study. J Clin Psychiatry. 2011 Jul;72(7):898-902

Karam EG, Tabet CC, Alam DJ et al. Bereavement related and non-bereavement related depressions: a comparative field study. J Affect Disord. 2009 Jan;112(1-3):102-10.

Wakefield J, First MB: Validity of the bereavement exclusion to major depression: does the empirical evidence support the proposal to eliminate the exclusion in DSM-5? World Psychiatry 2012;11:3-10

Zisook S, Corruble E, Duan N et al: The bereavement exclusion and DSM-5.
Depression & Anxiety (in press).

Frances A: DSM-5 to the Barricades on Grief.

Pies R: Once Again: Grief Is Not a Disorder, But It May Be Accompanied by Major Depression: A Response to Dr John Grohol. Psychiatric Times. Jan 27, 2012

 


Comments


View Comments / Leave a Comment

This post currently has 35 comments.
You can read the comments or leave your own thoughts.


    Last reviewed: By John M. Grohol, Psy.D. on 28 Feb 2012
    Published on PsychCentral.com. All rights reserved.

APA Reference
Pies, R. (2012). How the Public is Being Misinformed about Grief. Psych Central. Retrieved on October 24, 2014, from http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2012/02/28/how-the-public-is-being-misinformed-about-grief/

 

Recent Comments
  • Truth: With many of you women out there being so Damn picky and playing hard to get is the reason why there are so...
  • Emily: Michael – I keep reading your article. I changed my phone alarm to positive statements. I’m...
  • Jamarie: I just wanted to respond on your post, Milly. Not sure you will get this and that the post was all the way...
  • broken wife: I have been married to a schzi-bipolar husband for 32 years. Not sure how much longer this will work.I...
  • Lee G.: Ladies, I’m so sorry to hear how many of you are suffering with this. I was diagnosed about 10 years...
Subscribe to Our Weekly Newsletter


Find a Therapist
Enter ZIP or postal code