Amen, thank you for this post. Embitterment? I don't follow APA's doings like I once did--is this tongue in cheek or for real? Either way it is satisfyingly risible.
Right off the bat I can think of seven more "disorders:" lust, gluttony, sloth, pride...
Nietzsche converted into DSM format...where will eternal recurrence and the Uebermensch fit in I wonder?
It's real -- stunning, isn't it?
I had a good laugh at "post-traumatic embitterment disorder" too. The laughter stopped quickly though, especially with how quick pharmaceutical companies are to jump on new medication possibilities -- the implications are so "Brave New World" it's astonishing.
Joking: perhaps marijuana be legalized since it relieves the symptoms of PTED?
It's interesting in a scary way to see the DSM V discussions and articles. Is bitterness, or any other not just feeling but behavior (because if you're bitter and no one knows it you won't be diagnosed) ever justified, ever sane in an insane world? I think obviously yes. And it can be a cathartic force for positive change, as when someone bitter about health care scams becomes involved in attempts to reform healthare.
Can bitterness destroy a person, perhaps. But how can you measure such a thing. Should we have legal limits on behavior, like if you're so bitter you are verbally abusive and threatening, oh wait, we already have a limit on that, it's called the crime of assault. What if you're so sad you neglect your children, the crime of child neglect.
So what we need is compassion and treatment for those convicted of behavior society deems criminal. This pre crime therapy and treatment doesn't really seem to have any preventative value. I mean, how exactly would a bitter person come to seek mental health services? Perhaps by saying I hate everyone and I want to stop, no, once the person wants to stop being bitter, bitterness has ameliorated. The same with depression, etc. Seeking help is proof you're getting well on your own. So does rage cause violence? It seems likely? Does this make rage a mental illness, no, it's the way you deal with rage? If your rage makes you internalize your emotions you get stomach ulcers if you externalize them then being convicted of a crime is the diagnostic criteria. Therapy and the dsm should focus on criminal conviction as a diagnostic criteria and reevaluate the compassion with which we treat criminals, not treat non criminal behavior when there's no evidence it will escalate to criminal behavior. Anger management programs for people convicted of violent crimes,and all that. Therapy for people who abandoned their families and such not the normally unhappy. Or perhaps therapy for the normally unhappy and/or bitter but not as treatment for illness but as a way to stay sane, as preventative care as in therapists at unemployment offices, outplacement counselors at corporations, etc. But these days all psychotherapy and drug therapy etc. is funded through the medical system so for anyone to get help, their problem has to be labeled as disease. When therapists come up with a way to bill themselves out as treating problems that are normal human responses, not medical diseases, we'll be on the right road, until then if the only way a mental health professional can get paid is by giving a dsm number, the mhp, no matter her opinion will continue doling them out to the detriment of the dsmed.
We can practice outside the DSM, but only if we step outside of the medical model and insurance reimbursement.
We need to question the whole construct "mental illness" -- what is it and when is a problem an illness vs a bump in life? What does it mean to consider oneself mentally ill; how does that alter self-concept and relationship with the world? Plus a host of other questions.
Amen. I was shocked when I found that seeking therapy for marital problems and work problems was considered a symptom of mental illness. Surely such willingness to look at oneself is really a symptom of mental health.
Commenting by HaloScan
