2015
DOI: 10.1590/1415-4714.2015v18n3p540.9
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Abstract: Every side in the debate about eliminating or retaining the bereavement exclusion for diagnosing major depressive disorder agreed that the DSM-IV was inconsistent. It exempted symptoms of depression from a depressive disorder diagnosis if they were a response to the loss of a loved one, but diagnosed depression symptoms in response to any other kind of loss or stress as a disorder. The participants in the debate did not agree how to resolve the inconsistency — eliminate the exemption for bereavement, leave it … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
13
0
4

Year Published

2015
2015
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(17 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
0
13
0
4
Order By: Relevance
“…Whether 35.9 % of adults in the US are obese obviously depends on scientists' accounts of obesity and whether grief (and if so, what kinds of grief) qualifies as depression depends on psychiatrists' accounts of depression (Intemann 2001;Zachar 2015). The same argument can be made with respect to intelligence and I.Q.…”
Section: Ontological Choicesmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…Whether 35.9 % of adults in the US are obese obviously depends on scientists' accounts of obesity and whether grief (and if so, what kinds of grief) qualifies as depression depends on psychiatrists' accounts of depression (Intemann 2001;Zachar 2015). The same argument can be made with respect to intelligence and I.Q.…”
Section: Ontological Choicesmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…The creation of the DSM-5, between 2007 and 2012, was followed by debates and controversies regarding the comprehension and classification of bereavement (Zachar, 2015). Among questions raised by the specialists was the need for a more precise differentiation between bereavement and Major Depressive Disorder.…”
Section: The Understanding Of Bereavement In the Dsm-5mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Until the emergence of the DSM-5, most of the discussions in the academic field addressed if the recent 2 loss of a loved one should be an exclusion criterion for Major Depressive Disorder. Among those favorable to the maintenance of the criterion, the argument was that its exclusion could lead to the pathologization of habitual grief reactions, which could lead to the medicalization of bereaved people without a real necessity (Zachar, 2015). Those who defended the removal of bereavement as an exclusion criterion from depression diagnosis, in their turn, questioned why other types of loss, such as relationship breakups or a job resignation, were not included as exclusions criteria for the disorder diagnosis in the DSM-IV (Zachar, 2015).…”
Section: The Understanding Of Bereavement In the Dsm-5mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…One of the critical points of the discussion concerns changes that occurred in the understanding of grief in DSM-5, which central aspect is the differentiation between what could be considered "normal" grief and "depressive" or "complicated" grief (Zachar, 2015). At any rate, it is a consensus that, despite the occurrence of complicated bereavement being known, it could not be understood a priori as a reaction that differs from the normal context of existence.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…At any rate, it is a consensus that, despite the occurrence of complicated bereavement being known, it could not be understood a priori as a reaction that differs from the normal context of existence. An understanding that, according to Zachar (2015), excludes bereavement from the field of psychiatric disorder, which highlights the medicalization dilemma.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%