> The DSM-5 criteria for Major Depressive Disorder are extremely broad. You're making a justified/not justified appeal to the scope of diagnosis, not that diag

> The DSM-5 criteria for Major Depressive Disorder are extremely broad. You're making a justified/not justified appeal to the scope of diagnosis, not that diagnosis exists/does not exist on the basis of "reasons". As a taxonomy the code system in the DSM is broad, inclusive, and tries to hit a meaningful subset of behaviour in range of darned tricky, poorly defined, near-impossible to STEM-style research, and abuse prone issues. More importantly, the reason there will be a DSM-6, DSM-9, and DSM-111 is because these codes will specialize and refine themselves over time... > Essentially, the DSM-5 creates a specific diagnostic category for people who are basically OK but slightly sub-par... might end up on an indefinite SSRI prescription. The fact that a diagnosis exists or not is orthogonal to treatment method. The DSM is like the Dewey Decimal system of "head stuff", inclusion in it's indexing is proof and support only of inclusion in its index. Mein Kampf is as much a book as my self-published wookie fan fic, IOW ;) Crappy medication from crappy doctors is a big deal, and crappy use of prescriptions kills a lot more people than any of the fun drugs... Regardless, bad treatment or good treatment do not hinge on subjective qualitative judgements of your experiences. That's how priests operate, not doctors. > Something is seriously wrong with the way we diagnose and treat depression; The US is a notorious abuser of pharmaceuticals across the board, with notoriously bad diet, nutrition, weight, and health system... Something is seriously wrong with the way you treat all your sick people, and design your cities, and make your food, and treat your environment... There is especially something wrong with how you advertise pills constantly as though they can heal with powers otherwise reserved for healing lepers and converting water into nicely refined chianti... This still doesn't mean you are only by-textbook-defition depressed if you have a "reason". You don't have to justify leukaemia, schizophrenia, bulimia, aspergers, or chronic asshole-itis, why should depression be any different? If you're statistically abnormal, you're statistically abnormal. No one in crushing pain needs to convince, debate, warrant, or validate anything for a doctor and healthcare system to understand that their anamnesis correlates with a particular taxonomy. In fact, that's kind of a jerky thing to demand of someone experiencing psychic distress and looking for help...