essendoubleop

The DSM IV (DSM V will be released fairly soon) is such a comprehensive manual that I would have serious concerns if an individual could not find one "disorder" listed among its 1000+ pages, that does NOT apply to them. I do not think this is necessarily a bad thing as it can give guidance to someone who genuinely struggles with a condition that is clearly a disorder and disruption for them, but may not be an issue with another individual. For example, the anxiety that one may feel towards a given situation can be distressful, yet be interpreted as exhilarating for another, even though both may feel essentially the same physiological activation.

Even the most questionable of entries in the DSM (restless leg syndrome, seasonal affective disorder) are truly disruptive conditions for a presumably minute section of the population. Yet the thoughts about having these conditions that typically would pass unheeded, are extrapolated by commercials, word of mouth, television, and elsewhere, creating mountains out of molehills and benefit pharmaceutical interests. There is an undeniable corporate interest in mental health, with an industry that is predicated on the morbidity of mental illness (and subsequent remediation). I think this stems from the subjectiveness of mental conditions and the ability to extrapolate minor disturbances into full-fledged conditions that require seeking help (and paying for resolution). Again, that's not to say that the conditions people experience are trivial and the pain associated with them are nonexistent, on the contrary they can be more distressing than an actual "physical" malady. People who typically wouldn't be disturbed by a certain condition end up paying an inordinate amount of time and attention to something that would otherwise be benign and create a monster.

This can be supported in some instances, for example, through some studies in hedonics (the study of happiness). One of the key components of hedonics is that people generally don't elicit happiness when actively seeking to produce it. Rather it is usually a byproduct of achievement and striving towards goals (the beautiful struggle), it can simply "comes to you" (contentment). Instead, people who dwell on their current state of happiness and are preoccupied with it often report lower happiness scores. Human beings are remarkably adaptable to their current situation which is why you unfailingly see people who are exceedingly rich report similar happiness scores to people who may be serving them their breakfast. Similarly, I believe people are much more capable of dealing with problems than we give ourselves credit for. Everybody needs help, sure, but not to the extent of prescribing medical assistance for many of the occurrences of that which makes us human and life worth living.

Also, rates of the use of SSRIs (pills used to treat depression) are substantially higher in the UK, than in Germany and France. People aren't any more depressed in UK (or in Rwanda) than in Germany. The use of antidepressants in the United States DOUBLED over a 10 year period from 1996-2005. It would be absurd to claim that Americans have become twice as depressed over such a short time, yet. I think this says a tremendous amount about the current state of psychiatry and mental health. Just like the practice of performing prefrontal lobotomies on the mentally ill during the mid-20th century now seems perverted to us today, I predict people 20 years will look back on today's practice of over-medicating people of all ages with pills will be looked back at with similar regret.