As someone who received treatment for this 'diagnosis' before it was approved, I'd like to share my point of view. I had complicated grief. I had endured 5 significant losses in less than a year and was down for the count. This therapy saved my life - literally. It's a very specific protocol - and in fact, medication was contra indicated - as you can't medicate grief, it's a natural process.
I think the reaction to the terminology - which I completely agree with - may miss the point of this diagnosis becoming official. Because this was not an official diagnosis code, my insurance would not cover this therapy - making it an added struggle for me to find ways to afford it. Adding this to the DSM-V - is a way to make it easier for people to get the support they need. Putting the one year number on it allows the therapist to substantiate a diagnosis. It has nothing to do with the what you learn in the therapeutic process. Which is that grief never goes away, your feelings are totally normal. It's quite the contrary to a lot of the understandable backlash, The backlash is to the terminology - the therapy is aligned with all of the points you make. The therapy for prolonged grief is a way to honor and integrate your feelings so you can function. In no way does it ever tell you to get over anything or even move on. Quite the contrary. It honors the loss. It helps you work through the feelings, with the goal of being able to continue living with the loss - not forgetting the loss. I think sadly, the reaction here is to a diagnosis code, and not a very valuable method of support for people who really need it. The bigger picture of how our society deals with grief is a topic that desperately needs to be addressed. Thank goodness for platforms like this where people can find community and healing.
And for pro-longed grief being an official diagnosis so more people can get the professional support they need. As a final note: a friend of mine lost her sister last year -tragically to a murder. She is still in deep grief and her insurance would not cover this therapy - until now. This is a lifesaver for her.
We lost our 30 year old son to a sudden pulmonary embolism just over 3 years ago. I returned to work very quickly as a way to force myself to focus on something outside of my personal pain. The idea that grief is something to overcome or put behind us is absurd to anyone who is experiencing it. The only people I know of who hold those opinions are those who haven't suffered the kind of loss that my wife and I and others like us have experienced. They just don't get it. My response to them fluctuates between rage and attempted patience, depending on my mood at the time. The bottom line is that it is high time that all of us do our best to accept everyone else for who they are and where they are in their journey through this life. My personal feelings know no calendar: all they know is that my son isn't here.
I am aghast by this new disorder. I did not see the story in NYT and hope the whole therapeutic community is dissenting. However, I fear they are not. Our need to label/diagnose and medicate is harming our most basic instincts and needs in developing ourselves and our society--all of our many sides. The move to define normal overlooks the dynamism of being human. It has been three years since I lost the love of my life. My world was ripped apart in so many ways I could never have considered--ways I continue to discover and stumble upon. Then add Covid and it further challenged me. I have not moved on. Instead I continue to embrace my grief and move with in ways that I am discovering strengthen my love and gratitude not just for my husband, but for others. Increasing my humanity and compassion. My loss--which is always present is something I hold close and have been able to experience joy and sadness simultaneously. I am so glad what I was told, read and discovered is that there is no timeline, no right way. To be kind to myself and in that process, I have discovered others. And, yes, I sought support, still do--I have my list of 'Cry-Buddies' who hold my hand and breath with me when something triggers the pain. I remain grateful. I wonder what influence the pharmaceutical companies had on this new designation. Very Very sad--let's all work to counter this with human-sense. Thanks for sharing this and writing to counter it.
I carry the diagnosis of complicated grieving disorder after struggling to focus & concentrate on my new job after only receiving 3 days off for bereavement time. This was the first time I lost the most important person in the world to me, my grandmother. She had always been the maternal figure of my life and the one person who actually ‘understood’ me in this crazy world. I never realized how much I depended on her as my first go-to person about most everything. Losing her has created an insurmountable void in my life that has made my life less meaningful without her. I called in to work frequently due to my severe depression & lack of motivation to even get out of bed. Although I isolated myself intentionally, I already was isolated geographically from the rest of my family who lived 3 hours away. I had recently moved to be closer to my ex-husband for my son. That, in addition to other factors, made it harder for me to ‘bounce back’ & into the workforce & society like everyone else in my family seemed to be able to do. I actually felt a sense of relief after discovering that there was an actual name for my unique struggle. It didn’t help me with my job, because I was subsequently fired, despite trying to fight it based on suffering from a documented short-term disability. I just had to suck it up & move on. I am on meds for my depression but haven’t sought out therapy/groups/counseling as of yet, but almost 2 years later, I think it would be helpful. It’s a sorrow like nothing I have ever felt before.
I feel like I have been in a "Grieving State" for a very long time and I know it is not healthy and have been seeing a Dr. for years.
My husband left me for someone else 22yrs ago. I was with him during his Drug a!nd Alcohol treatments, Lung cancer. I did not know where he lived with his new wife. She died I found out a year before my husband died. I still loved him for 30yrs and was father to our son, but I don't know where,how,when he passed. The only way I found out was I received SSI spouses benefits. I cannot get over not being there for him. Why?, is what I keep asking myself. Plus my son who was very close to him doesn't care?! Very upsetting. What am I doing wrong? or right?
One positive I see to a PGD diagnosis is allowing those who are grieving to receive benefits while they're going through a hard time. Therapy covered by their insurance, time off work allowed for a diagnosable condition. It's pathetic we would need to resort to these tactics. It's sad we can't accept that grief is pain and there is no linear recovery. But if we're not going to accept it and the medical and mental health field has to step on on our behalves then so be it.
I agree with your comments. I've been involved with grief stuff for thirty years since my son, 17, died in a car accident. Let me be cynical: this new classification is more about the money than the grief. Here is another CODE to be billed to the insurance company. Another way for practitioners to get paid for counseling grievers. And another way for grievers to get financial help when they seek counseling.
It seems that when you need help the most, there is a cost to it that may be out of reach, or you are unwilling to pay. This new code will help that 15% who suffer complicated grief, assuming they seek help. For others who are coded for it simply to get an insurance benefit, it becomes a part of their medical record.
I believe that the authors have the best of intentions in helping those who are grieving, but I am disappointed in their response to the NYT article. They state: "Our belief is that grief is far too nuanced, textured, and dynamic to fit into a DSM diagnosis," and then go on to concede that "12 to 15% of people dealing with a significant loss will indeed suffer from what’s known as “complicated grief,”" and that validation and affordable treatment are beneficial results of this diagnosis being added to the DSM-5. Rather than encouraging the faulty interpretation that this means that anyone who is grieving beyond 1 year is pathological, the authors might have clarified that this is not an either-or situation. Most people grieve by adapting to their new circumstances on their own timeline, including feeling all kinds of feelings, physical and emotional that shift over time, and by making meaning--and there are all kinds of resources, including the groups and books the authors offer, that can be helpful to these people. However, a small percentage are really stuck, and are not able to adapt or benefit from those resources. Some of these can benefit from specialized treatments for "prolonged grief" like the one developed by Dr. Shear's team. If you can pay $250 (picking a likely hourly rate for a therapist) for 16 weeks, you can benefit from this treatment and everyone will be happy because it there was not a diagnosis in the DSM-5. But if we really want to help everyone who is grieving, let's not forget that access to mental health care is a huge social justice issue. Having the prolonged grief diagnosis in the DSM-5 will help many (not all) people who are suffering have access to care they can afford (meaning, it's paid for by their insurance). I hope people can see it this way, rather than as a zero-sum game where if some people are benefitting, the rest have to "lose" by being pathologized by this diagnosis. That just makes no sense, and it's not supporting good mental health care.
I was 20 years old in 1970 when I had my first bout of deep depression, brought on by being unable to return to college for a third year and thus absented from friends who'd accepted me for myself in a way no other classmates at any other level of education ever had. Depression has hit me off and on through much of my subsequent adult life, but it was the death of my wife of 25 years in September of 2016 that has left me in the depths of grief ever since. I read about a dozen books in the following year, about dying, death, and grieving, but it was the book by Rebecca Soffer and Gabrielle Birkner that helped me understand that we each have our own grief timeline, and that there are varying kinds of grief, dependent upon the loved one that has passed on. Reading Jonathan Santlofer's "The Widower's Notebook" also helped me realize that my grief could last the rest of my life, and that would be OK. The first year was bad, but each successive year saw my grief worsen -- until I began to see a grief counselor at the beginning of this year. My spells of depression are actually more deeply felt, but they don't last as long, and for the first time in over 5 1/2 years, I've begun to think that I might like to find someone else to share my life with. I know I will never fully recover from my dear wife's death, and I'm OK with that. If I never find another partner, I'm all right with that, too; after all, I had the best -- how could that not help me cope with my solitude?
As someone who received treatment for this 'diagnosis' before it was approved, I'd like to share my point of view. I had complicated grief. I had endured 5 significant losses in less than a year and was down for the count. This therapy saved my life - literally. It's a very specific protocol - and in fact, medication was contra indicated - as you can't medicate grief, it's a natural process.
I think the reaction to the terminology - which I completely agree with - may miss the point of this diagnosis becoming official. Because this was not an official diagnosis code, my insurance would not cover this therapy - making it an added struggle for me to find ways to afford it. Adding this to the DSM-V - is a way to make it easier for people to get the support they need. Putting the one year number on it allows the therapist to substantiate a diagnosis. It has nothing to do with the what you learn in the therapeutic process. Which is that grief never goes away, your feelings are totally normal. It's quite the contrary to a lot of the understandable backlash, The backlash is to the terminology - the therapy is aligned with all of the points you make. The therapy for prolonged grief is a way to honor and integrate your feelings so you can function. In no way does it ever tell you to get over anything or even move on. Quite the contrary. It honors the loss. It helps you work through the feelings, with the goal of being able to continue living with the loss - not forgetting the loss. I think sadly, the reaction here is to a diagnosis code, and not a very valuable method of support for people who really need it. The bigger picture of how our society deals with grief is a topic that desperately needs to be addressed. Thank goodness for platforms like this where people can find community and healing.
And for pro-longed grief being an official diagnosis so more people can get the professional support they need. As a final note: a friend of mine lost her sister last year -tragically to a murder. She is still in deep grief and her insurance would not cover this therapy - until now. This is a lifesaver for her.
We lost our 30 year old son to a sudden pulmonary embolism just over 3 years ago. I returned to work very quickly as a way to force myself to focus on something outside of my personal pain. The idea that grief is something to overcome or put behind us is absurd to anyone who is experiencing it. The only people I know of who hold those opinions are those who haven't suffered the kind of loss that my wife and I and others like us have experienced. They just don't get it. My response to them fluctuates between rage and attempted patience, depending on my mood at the time. The bottom line is that it is high time that all of us do our best to accept everyone else for who they are and where they are in their journey through this life. My personal feelings know no calendar: all they know is that my son isn't here.
…and Dads as well
…and Dads too
I am aghast by this new disorder. I did not see the story in NYT and hope the whole therapeutic community is dissenting. However, I fear they are not. Our need to label/diagnose and medicate is harming our most basic instincts and needs in developing ourselves and our society--all of our many sides. The move to define normal overlooks the dynamism of being human. It has been three years since I lost the love of my life. My world was ripped apart in so many ways I could never have considered--ways I continue to discover and stumble upon. Then add Covid and it further challenged me. I have not moved on. Instead I continue to embrace my grief and move with in ways that I am discovering strengthen my love and gratitude not just for my husband, but for others. Increasing my humanity and compassion. My loss--which is always present is something I hold close and have been able to experience joy and sadness simultaneously. I am so glad what I was told, read and discovered is that there is no timeline, no right way. To be kind to myself and in that process, I have discovered others. And, yes, I sought support, still do--I have my list of 'Cry-Buddies' who hold my hand and breath with me when something triggers the pain. I remain grateful. I wonder what influence the pharmaceutical companies had on this new designation. Very Very sad--let's all work to counter this with human-sense. Thanks for sharing this and writing to counter it.
I carry the diagnosis of complicated grieving disorder after struggling to focus & concentrate on my new job after only receiving 3 days off for bereavement time. This was the first time I lost the most important person in the world to me, my grandmother. She had always been the maternal figure of my life and the one person who actually ‘understood’ me in this crazy world. I never realized how much I depended on her as my first go-to person about most everything. Losing her has created an insurmountable void in my life that has made my life less meaningful without her. I called in to work frequently due to my severe depression & lack of motivation to even get out of bed. Although I isolated myself intentionally, I already was isolated geographically from the rest of my family who lived 3 hours away. I had recently moved to be closer to my ex-husband for my son. That, in addition to other factors, made it harder for me to ‘bounce back’ & into the workforce & society like everyone else in my family seemed to be able to do. I actually felt a sense of relief after discovering that there was an actual name for my unique struggle. It didn’t help me with my job, because I was subsequently fired, despite trying to fight it based on suffering from a documented short-term disability. I just had to suck it up & move on. I am on meds for my depression but haven’t sought out therapy/groups/counseling as of yet, but almost 2 years later, I think it would be helpful. It’s a sorrow like nothing I have ever felt before.
I feel like I have been in a "Grieving State" for a very long time and I know it is not healthy and have been seeing a Dr. for years.
My husband left me for someone else 22yrs ago. I was with him during his Drug a!nd Alcohol treatments, Lung cancer. I did not know where he lived with his new wife. She died I found out a year before my husband died. I still loved him for 30yrs and was father to our son, but I don't know where,how,when he passed. The only way I found out was I received SSI spouses benefits. I cannot get over not being there for him. Why?, is what I keep asking myself. Plus my son who was very close to him doesn't care?! Very upsetting. What am I doing wrong? or right?
One positive I see to a PGD diagnosis is allowing those who are grieving to receive benefits while they're going through a hard time. Therapy covered by their insurance, time off work allowed for a diagnosable condition. It's pathetic we would need to resort to these tactics. It's sad we can't accept that grief is pain and there is no linear recovery. But if we're not going to accept it and the medical and mental health field has to step on on our behalves then so be it.
I agree with your comments. I've been involved with grief stuff for thirty years since my son, 17, died in a car accident. Let me be cynical: this new classification is more about the money than the grief. Here is another CODE to be billed to the insurance company. Another way for practitioners to get paid for counseling grievers. And another way for grievers to get financial help when they seek counseling.
It seems that when you need help the most, there is a cost to it that may be out of reach, or you are unwilling to pay. This new code will help that 15% who suffer complicated grief, assuming they seek help. For others who are coded for it simply to get an insurance benefit, it becomes a part of their medical record.
I'm stunned by this.
I believe that the authors have the best of intentions in helping those who are grieving, but I am disappointed in their response to the NYT article. They state: "Our belief is that grief is far too nuanced, textured, and dynamic to fit into a DSM diagnosis," and then go on to concede that "12 to 15% of people dealing with a significant loss will indeed suffer from what’s known as “complicated grief,”" and that validation and affordable treatment are beneficial results of this diagnosis being added to the DSM-5. Rather than encouraging the faulty interpretation that this means that anyone who is grieving beyond 1 year is pathological, the authors might have clarified that this is not an either-or situation. Most people grieve by adapting to their new circumstances on their own timeline, including feeling all kinds of feelings, physical and emotional that shift over time, and by making meaning--and there are all kinds of resources, including the groups and books the authors offer, that can be helpful to these people. However, a small percentage are really stuck, and are not able to adapt or benefit from those resources. Some of these can benefit from specialized treatments for "prolonged grief" like the one developed by Dr. Shear's team. If you can pay $250 (picking a likely hourly rate for a therapist) for 16 weeks, you can benefit from this treatment and everyone will be happy because it there was not a diagnosis in the DSM-5. But if we really want to help everyone who is grieving, let's not forget that access to mental health care is a huge social justice issue. Having the prolonged grief diagnosis in the DSM-5 will help many (not all) people who are suffering have access to care they can afford (meaning, it's paid for by their insurance). I hope people can see it this way, rather than as a zero-sum game where if some people are benefitting, the rest have to "lose" by being pathologized by this diagnosis. That just makes no sense, and it's not supporting good mental health care.
I was 20 years old in 1970 when I had my first bout of deep depression, brought on by being unable to return to college for a third year and thus absented from friends who'd accepted me for myself in a way no other classmates at any other level of education ever had. Depression has hit me off and on through much of my subsequent adult life, but it was the death of my wife of 25 years in September of 2016 that has left me in the depths of grief ever since. I read about a dozen books in the following year, about dying, death, and grieving, but it was the book by Rebecca Soffer and Gabrielle Birkner that helped me understand that we each have our own grief timeline, and that there are varying kinds of grief, dependent upon the loved one that has passed on. Reading Jonathan Santlofer's "The Widower's Notebook" also helped me realize that my grief could last the rest of my life, and that would be OK. The first year was bad, but each successive year saw my grief worsen -- until I began to see a grief counselor at the beginning of this year. My spells of depression are actually more deeply felt, but they don't last as long, and for the first time in over 5 1/2 years, I've begun to think that I might like to find someone else to share my life with. I know I will never fully recover from my dear wife's death, and I'm OK with that. If I never find another partner, I'm all right with that, too; after all, I had the best -- how could that not help me cope with my solitude?