The Iatrogenic Consequences of Medicalising Grief: Resetting the Research Agenda.

IF 2.7 2区 医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Sociology of health & illness Pub Date : 2024-11-28 DOI:10.1111/1467-9566.13866
Sarah Gurley-Green, Lisa Cosgrove, Milutin Kostic, Lauren Koa, Susan McPherson
{"title":"The Iatrogenic Consequences of Medicalising Grief: Resetting the Research Agenda.","authors":"Sarah Gurley-Green, Lisa Cosgrove, Milutin Kostic, Lauren Koa, Susan McPherson","doi":"10.1111/1467-9566.13866","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>When the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) was published in 2013, there was a firestorm of controversy about the elimination of the bereavement exclusion. Proponents of this change and of the proposed \"complicated grief\" designation believed that this change would help clinicians recognise major depression in the context of recent bereavement. Other researchers and clinicians have raised concerns about medicalising grief. In 2022 \"prolonged grief disorder\" (PGD) was officially included in the DSM-5-TR in the trauma- and stressor-related disorders section. Not surprisingly, there has been a push to identify biomarkers and to use neuroimaging to identify the neurobiological basis of PGD. Some researchers have even suggested that PGD is a 'reward circuit disorder' akin to addiction and that naltrexone, an opioid antagonist, may be a promising treatment. The purpose of this paper is to show how medicalising grief reinforces a research agenda dedicated to the search for pharmaceutical and psychological 'magic bullets.' Following George and Whitehouse (2021), we propose that an ecopsychosocial approach-one that incorporates environmental and contextual factors-is needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":21685,"journal":{"name":"Sociology of health & illness","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sociology of health & illness","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.13866","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

When the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) was published in 2013, there was a firestorm of controversy about the elimination of the bereavement exclusion. Proponents of this change and of the proposed "complicated grief" designation believed that this change would help clinicians recognise major depression in the context of recent bereavement. Other researchers and clinicians have raised concerns about medicalising grief. In 2022 "prolonged grief disorder" (PGD) was officially included in the DSM-5-TR in the trauma- and stressor-related disorders section. Not surprisingly, there has been a push to identify biomarkers and to use neuroimaging to identify the neurobiological basis of PGD. Some researchers have even suggested that PGD is a 'reward circuit disorder' akin to addiction and that naltrexone, an opioid antagonist, may be a promising treatment. The purpose of this paper is to show how medicalising grief reinforces a research agenda dedicated to the search for pharmaceutical and psychological 'magic bullets.' Following George and Whitehouse (2021), we propose that an ecopsychosocial approach-one that incorporates environmental and contextual factors-is needed.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
悲伤医学化的先天性后果:重新设定研究议程。
2013 年,当《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》(DSM-5)第五版出版时,关于取消丧亲排除的争议引起了轩然大波。支持这一改动和 "复杂悲伤 "称谓建议的人认为,这一改动将有助于临床医生在近期丧亲的背景下识别重度抑郁症。其他研究人员和临床医生则对将悲伤医学化表示担忧。2022 年,"长期悲伤障碍"(PGD)被正式纳入 DSM-5-TR 的创伤和压力相关障碍部分。毫不奇怪,人们一直在推动确定生物标志物,并利用神经影像学来确定 PGD 的神经生物学基础。一些研究人员甚至认为,PGD 是一种类似于成瘾的 "奖赏回路障碍",而阿片拮抗剂纳曲酮可能是一种很有前景的治疗方法。本文旨在说明将悲伤医学化如何强化了致力于寻找药物和心理 "灵丹妙药 "的研究议程。继乔治和怀特豪斯(George and Whitehouse,2021 年)之后,我们提出需要一种生态心理社会方法--一种包含环境和背景因素的方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
6.90%
发文量
156
期刊介绍: Sociology of Health & Illness is an international journal which publishes sociological articles on all aspects of health, illness, medicine and health care. We welcome empirical and theoretical contributions in this field.
期刊最新文献
The Iatrogenic Consequences of Medicalising Grief: Resetting the Research Agenda. A Political-Economic Model of Community and Societal Health Resources: A 92-Country Global Analysis. From Cells to Organoids: Sociological Considerations for the Bioengineering of Human Models. The Golden Ticket? Widening Access in UK Medicine and the Making of an Emotional Proletariat. Between epistemic injustice and therapeutic jurisprudence: Coronial processes involving families of autistic people, people with learning disabilities and/or mental ill health.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1