Affiliation:
1. Auburn University Montgomery
2. Columbia University
3. Virginia Institute of Psychiatric and Behavioral Genetics and Departments of Psychiatry, and Human and Molecular Genetics, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine
Abstract
Beginning with the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (3rd ed.; DSM-III), depressive episodes following the loss of a loved one were considered to represent normal grief if they did not include certain severe symptoms or if they lasted less than 2 months. This was called the bereavement exclusion rule. A debate about whether to eliminate the bereavement exclusion became a hotly contested issue during the DSM-5 revision process. The debate involved disagreements about which research studies were most relevant to assessing the validity of the bereavement exclusion rule, different value commitments regarding the distinction between normal and abnormal, and contrasting philosophical assumptions about the nature of psychiatric disorder. Based on a review of the arguments offered in academic journals, the blogosphere, and in the mass media, and on interviews with active participants in the debate, this article narrates a consensus history that reflects the diversity of viewpoints promoted during the debate and the diversity of views on the outcome.
Cited by
27 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
1. Prolonged Grief Disorder and the DSM;Journal of Nervous & Mental Disease;2023-05
2. Mental Health;Palgrave Studies in Law, Neuroscience, and Human Behavior;2023
3. Illness, Injury, and the Phenomenology of Loss: A Dialogue;Journal of Consciousness Studies;2022-09-21
4. References;Living Worth;2022-02-04
5. Failed Biocommensurations;Living Worth;2022-02-04