The Grief Debate, the DSM, and Clinical Practice.

There has been an ongoing debate regarding grief, whether it may be at times pathological, and whether it is different from depression. This article addresses those questions by tracking the changing course of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manuals of Mental Disorders (DSMs) since DSM-III and by reviewing the debate concerning grief and depression. At the time when DSM-III was being prepared in the late 1970s (it was published in 1980), there was a concern that normal bereavement (or grief) was being diagnosed as major depression. To address this concern, the editors of DSM-III added a category of "uncomplicated bereavement." The fourth edition of the DSM (DSM-IV), published in 1994, then followed by a minor change. However, the editors of DSM-5 decided to eliminate the bereavement exclusion entirely. Their concern was simply whether the individual did or did not suffer from major depression. Since an individual might not warrant a diagnosis of major depression but might still be experiencing grief, the DSM discussion leads directly into the question of whether grief-later called prolonged grief disorder-and depression are separate conditions. Advocates for prolonged grief disorder maintained that grief is different from depression but that patients may present with a mix of grief and depressive symptoms that are clinically difficult to distinguish. Advocates of separate conditions have in fact developed an inventory of symptoms that identify prolonged grief disorder. However, inasmuch as a typical grief presentation will include depressive symptoms, the clinical challenge is to distinguish prolonged grief disorder and major depression, as well as to distinguish both from normal grief. Given the temporal limits of an average consultation, this article argues that making the required distinctions is an unrealistic expectation. Finally, researchers have developed specific treatment programs for prolonged grief disorder, but a conflict between the 2 primary researchers involved and the generalities in which the programs are phrased have led to the suggestion of a different approach to treatment that replaces generalities with a person-centered approach.