About one in four people who appear to be depressed are in fact struggling with the normal mental fallout from a recent emotional blow, like a ruptured marriage, the loss of a job or the collapse of an investment, a new study suggests. To avoid unnecessary diagnoses and stigma, the standard definition of depression should be redrawn to specifically exclude such cases, the authors argue.
Thus begins the article from today's New York Times with above link.
I'm sure they didn't intend this, but they're basically suggesting that developing symptoms of clinical depression as a result of a bad investment should not be stigmatized or seen as a weakness of character, but having a medical condition that causes you to develop those same symptoms should have a stigma?
Say it with me now. Huh?
I'm all for stigmatizing the Wall Street hotshot who falls to pieces when his high risk investment goes sour. It's only stuff, material things. It's part of life ~ they come, they go. Buck up! Deal with it!
But the person who lost the genetic lottery and is stuck with a mental illness. They're the survivor in this scenario. They don't deserve stigma any more that a person with cystic fibrosis, type 1 diabetes, multiple sclerosis or leukemia. They're doing nothing more (and nothing less) than living with a debilitating disease. They deserve our praise, not our degradation.
Let's just wait and see if anyone else notices that little misstep and reminds that Times that goal was to get rid of stigma all together.
No comments:
Post a Comment