There was a good opinion column in the NYT today by professor of psychiatry emeritus, Allan Francis, who calls to task those who want to treat grief as a mental illness and treat it with medication. From “Good Grief:”
A startling suggestion is buried in the fine print describing proposed changes for the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders — perhaps better known as the D.S.M. 5, the book that will set the new boundary between mental disorder and normality. If this suggestion is adopted, many people who experience completely normal grief could be mislabeled as having a psychiatric problem. Suppose your spouse or child died two weeks ago and now you feel sad, take less interest and pleasure in things, have little appetite or energy, can’t sleep well and don’t feel like going to work. In the proposal for the D.S.M. 5, your condition would be diagnosed as a major depressive disorder.
Excuse me, but this is nuts. Grief not only allows us to work through the trauma of loss, but it honors those we have loved, as Francis notes. I mean, how awful would it have been, if when my father died, I had merely shrugged and said, “Oh well, it was nice knowing him,”? But I think Francis missed an important point when he discussed why this is happening:
It is not that psychiatrists are in bed with the drug companies, as is often alleged. The proposed change actually grows out of the best of intentions. Researchers point out that, during bereavement, some people develop an enduring case of major depression, and clinicians hope that by identifying such cases early they could reduce the burdens of illness with treatment.
That may be true, but it is the shallow end of the pool, I think. What seems to be really going on is our growing raw fear of suffering—even of suffering that allows us to move past the loss. This suffering phobia is becoming a societal neurosis, for example, some of us wanting so badly to avoid suffering that we agree a good answer to it is the elimination of the sufferer. Indeed, as I pointed out here, some have even supported prophylactic suicide as a legitimate answer to the fear of grief.
Huxley predicted it in Brave New World: As soon as one of the dehumanized minions experienced a wrinkled brow, they’d pop the pill. Normal grief is good for us. Such suffering can and should be mitigated by loving family and friends by paying special attention to the griever. But eliminate it? No. That would make us less than human. Good for Francis for seeking to block the way.
Dear Reader,
Can I be direct with you?
War abroad. Socialists on the rise. AI upending human life. Endless uproar online. The modern attention economy doesn’t want readers — it wants users enslaved to the tyranny of the present.
First Things is the antidote: literary excellence, timeless truths, and a fixed point of reference in a culture that has lost its bearings.
But we can’t do it without readers like you.
Our goal: Raise $150,000 by November 1 to sustain First Things in the year ahead.
Your gift anchors readers in the permanent things.
Make your Fall Campaign gift now using the button below.
If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Giovanni Del Piero, Director of the Editor’s Circle, at gdelpiero@firstthings.com or 212-627-1985.
The Church in the Age of Therapy
In 1966, Philip Rieff wrote in The Triumph of the Therapeutic that “Religious man was born to…
Canada’s Deadliest Blind Spot
On September 20, the Daily Mail ran a story with the provocative headline, “Our 83-year-old Christian grandmother…
The Faithful Joy of Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen
Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen seem to have had little in common. She favored rhinestones; he wore…