Misplaced Pages

Talk:Major depressive disorder

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Denni (talk | contribs) at 21:44, 3 March 2004. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 21:44, 3 March 2004 by Denni (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Right, SE. Watch and learn as I incorporate your opinions into the text. -- The Anome

The first edit: my first para goes, except for two sentences which drop down lower (and are phrased in non-dogmatic terms that can be backed up by cites if you wish). Your correction becomes the first para, except that 'may or may not' becomes 'often'. Here endeth the first edit. -- The Anome

The second edit: I incorporate your correction re non-loss medical reason into the para above. -- The Anome

The third edit: now your correction is incorporated into the para above, it is no longer needed. So it goes.

Now I have incorporated your corrections into the article. I have

  • replaced my words (or someone else's?) with yours for correction 1
  • incorporated the sense of correction 2 into my text, and deleted the redundant correction

You should now be happy - if not, please tell me why. -- The Anome


This article merges discussion of depression in general and unipolar depression. I'm wondering if anyone else feels it might be better to have one page called "Depression", and another called "Unipolar disorder" or "Clinical depression" or "Major depression" to discuss particulars. -- Ryguasu

I agree that a simplification and rationalization of these topics makes sense. Beans


Here's a link to a useful public domain booklet; material from this can be freely copied into the article: Enchanter


WikiProject Psychopathology started, please feel free to join.


This article, like most of the psychiatry articles on Misplaced Pages, currently basically reads like the "party line" from the DSM-IV, which, while influential, is hardly the only word on the topic. Things that I would like to see eventually included: critical viewpoints that do not accept the "medical model" (Szasz is the most notorious, but there's a wide range); literary connections (van Gogh, Rothko, etc.); controversy over treatment; etc. As with most things relating to the human psyche, it is possible to view depression as simply a biological condition, but this is not the only viewpoint. --Delirium 23:58, Dec 9, 2003 (UTC)

Actually, to keep things manageable, perhaps this article (at clinical depression) should remain a dispassionate exposition of the medical model viewpoints (as dictated by the APA and NIMH, among others), but there should be a more general article as well, exploring varying viewpoints on the condition, literary and artistic connections, the history of "melancholia" and social reactions to it, etc. --Delirium 00:00, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)
I'd like to say that the medical establishment with regards to depression reminds me of the dentistry establishment with regards to mercury amalgam fillings. The attitude towards depression tends to be that it is purely caused by psychological and genetic factors and is a disease like diabetes, and the way to treat it is with psychoptherapy and psychotropic drugs. The whole biological role in causing and treating depression is not taken very seriously. For example, oftentimes depressed people have deficiency in serotonin synthesis, so that is treated with costly SSRI drugs. Actually treating the biological problem, such as dietary mineral deficiencies or heavy metal poisoning, just isn't cricket. I suppose you could be cynical and say that the medical companies would not make any money that way, nor would the psychologists, and the doctors would turn their nose at making themselves sound like their enemies the naturopaths. For whatever reason, the causes are medically known just like how mecury fillings emit mercury vapour, but people in the white coats are not listening.
That strikes me as a pretty POV stance to take. I agree with Delirium that this needs to be an article without bias, and if bias needs discussing, it can be done in another article on Controversial issues in psychiatric medicine, for instance.