3 ms·

> We need another word for what is described above. One plausible candidate is the word (and condition) "melancholia," which has the advantage of being identif

by lutusp 10y ago

> We need another word for what is described above. One plausible candidate is the word (and condition) "melancholia," which has the advantage of being identifiable by means of objective clinical indicators[1]. Melancholia was excluded from DSM-5, not because it lacked objective clinical diagnosis indicators, but because it possessed them. By being open to objective, impartial diagnosis, it set itself apart from the other conditions described in the DSM, in a way that would have exposed something about the DSM that its editors preferred to conceal -- the majority of the DSM's content lacks scientific substance[2]. A quote from the second linked reference: "A single disorder that met the scientific demands of the day, in other words, would only make the failure to meet them in the rest of the D.S.M. that much more glaring." 1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3733615/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3733615/ 2. http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/does-psychiatry-need-science http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/does-psychiatry-need-...

spangry 10y ago
It's an interesting issue: they did have a depression sub-type in DSM-IV called 'melancholic depression': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melancholic_depression https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melancholic_depression At any rate, at least it still seems to be of interests to 'clinical academics' in some prominent mental health research institutes (e.g. http://www.blackdoginstitute.org.au/healthprofessionals/depression/ourmodelofdepression/melancholicdepression.cfm http://www.blackdoginstitute.org.au/healthprofessionals/depr...). The entire premise of the DSM is a bit of a crock: mental illness simply doesn't fit well into the disease model of illness. Mental dysfunction is not binary, it is measurable on a continuous scale. And although some symptoms do present in certain 'groups' more frequently than others, symptoms of mental illness are more 'mix and match' than the DSM would lead one to believe. This sometimes means that people are either diagnosed with 2-3 'co-morbid' disorders or none at all.

by lutusp 10y ago

spangry 10y ago

It's an interesting issue: they did have a depression sub-type in DSM-IV called 'melancholic depression': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melancholic_depression https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melancholic_depression At any rate, at least it still seems to be of interests to 'clinical academics' in some prominent mental health research institutes (e.g. http://www.blackdoginstitute.org.au/healthprofessionals/depression/ourmodelofdepression/melancholicdepression.cfm http://www.blackdoginstitute.org.au/healthprofessionals/depr...). The entire premise of the DSM is a bit of a crock: mental illness simply doesn't fit well into the disease model of illness. Mental dysfunction is not binary, it is measurable on a continuous scale. And although some symptoms do present in certain 'groups' more frequently than others, symptoms of mental illness are more 'mix and match' than the DSM would lead one to believe. This sometimes means that people are either diagnosed with 2-3 'co-morbid' disorders or none at all.