Symptoms Of Depression Dsm, Are We Becoming A Nation Of Healthy Hypochondriacs?

Q: The new, intensive focus on depression as a widespread disease has been underpinned by the work of nosologists, specialists in classifying and defining illness. The foremost definitions of depression are those developed by panels of experts convened by the American Psychiatric Association. The APA’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual was first compiled in 1952 to assist the national census of mental disability, but has since been transformed. The fourth edition, known as DSM-IV, was published in 1994 and is now internationally recognised as the prime definition of how to recognise depression and, implicitly, when and how to treat it. DSM-IV definitions are also closely linked to those in the WHO’s International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) and arguably now drive them.

A:DSM-IV is in some sense a great achievement, each new edition representing decades of development and years of expert work. The task is formidable and very costly: establishing the ground rules demands feats of understanding, organisation and painstaking application, and great political skill would have been needed to secure anything like consensus and general acceptance. And clearly the need for good definition is paramount. It is fundamental to common understandings, good communication and effective diagnosis; lack of definition increases the risk of wishful, misguided thinking and unhelpful treatment and practice. However, what matters it is how useful the definitions are and to what effect on health - and this depends on many different pluses and minuses, with much judgement needed about which is which. If DSM-IV were a fishing net, the question would be: what mesh size should be used to catch depressed fish but not others ? The mesh has been getting smaller over the years, but it this a good or bad thing ? Five editions of the DSM have produced a threefold increase in "disease entities". What Hippocrates knew as melancholy is now identifiable in 300 manifestations (including manic depression), detectable through the expression of many commonplace symptoms and characterised by often familiar behaviours. But how much does this explain ill-health and help doctors to relieve suffering, and has the time come for "National Depression Screening Days" (1997) to be extended beyond the US? Perhaps the DSM classification offers convenient rather than convincing solutions and has rationalised rather than reduced diagnostic chaos. Perhaps longer definitions make less sense, by directing towards a circumference of blurry understandings, the more they elaborate the central point. In expanding definitions of "depression", perhaps these guidelines have helped to promote something like hypochondriasis (DSM-IV, F45.2) as well: "If people are educated to believe they

are fundamentally fragile, always on the verge of mortal disease, perpetually in need of health-care professionals at every side, always dependent on an imagined discipline of ‘preventive’ medicine, there can be no limit to the numbers of doctors’ offices, clinics, and hospitals required to meet the demand ... We are, in real life, a reasonably healthy people. Far from being ineptly put together, we are amazingly tough, durable organisms, full of health, ready for most contingencies. The new danger to our well-being, if we continue to listen to all the talk, is in becoming a nation of healthy hypochondriacs, living gingerly, worrying ourselves half to death" (Thomas, 1979)