The diagnosis and classification of mental health disorders are essential for providing

effective treatment and support to individuals experiencing psychological distress. However, the
process of developing diagnostic criteria and classifying disorders is a complex and dynamic
process that requires careful consideration of various factors. One such disorder that has been the
subject of recent debate and controversy is Prolonged Grief Disorder (PGD).

In the article “Prolonged Grief Disorder in section II of DSM-5: a commentary,”

Prigerson and colleagues (2017) argue that the inclusion of PGD as a separate disorder in Section
II of the DSM-5 is unwarranted and may lead to overdiagnosis and overtreatment of individuals
who are experiencing normal grief reactions. They suggest that PGD should be classified as a
subtype of Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) in Section III of the DSM-5, which would allow
for further research and validation of the disorder.

The authors make several compelling arguments to support their position. Firstly, they
note that the symptoms of PGD overlap significantly with those of MDD and other mood
disorders, which suggests that PGD may not be a distinct disorder. Secondly, they highlight the
lack of consensus among researchers and clinicians about the definition and diagnostic criteria
for PGD, which has led to significant variability in diagnosis and treatment. Finally, they point
out that the inclusion of PGD in Section II of the DSM-5 may lead to overdiagnosis and
overtreatment of individuals who are experiencing normal grief reactions, which could have
negative consequences for both patients and healthcare providers.

While I agree with many of the points made by Prigerson and colleagues, I believe that
the classification of PGD as a separate disorder in Section II of the DSM-5 is still warranted.
Firstly, while there may be significant overlap between the symptoms of PGD and MDD, there
are also important differences that distinguish the two disorders. For example, PGD is
characterized by a persistent yearning for the deceased and a sense of disbelief or inability to
accept their death, whereas MDD is primarily characterized by feelings of sadness, hopelessness,
and a loss of interest in activities. These differences suggest that PGD may be a distinct disorder
that requires separate diagnostic criteria.

Secondly, while there may be variability in diagnosis and treatment of PGD, this is notl
unique to this disorder. Variability in diagnosis and treatment is a common issue in many areas
of mental health, and efforts should be made to address this through better education and training
for clinicians, as well as the development of more robust diagnostic criteria.

Finally, while there is a risk of overdiagnosis and overtreatment of PGD, this is a risk that
exists for many disorders in mental health. The solution to this issue is not to eliminate the
disorder from diagnostic criteria, but rather to develop better diagnostic tools and guidelines to
ensure accurate and appropriate diagnosis and treatment.

In conclusion, the classification and diagnosis of PGD is a complex issue that requires
careful consideration of various factors. While the arguments made by Prigerson and colleagues
are compelling, I believe that the classification of PGD as a separate disorder in Section II of the
DSM-5 is still warranted. However, efforts should be made to address issues of variability in
diagnosis and treatment and to ensure accurate and appropriate diagnosis and treatment of this
disorder.

The inclusion of PGD in the DSM-5 also has raised several diagnosis and classification
issues. While PGD is a real and significant experience for some individuals, the diagnosis may
pathologize a normal grief reaction and lead to unnecessary medicalization. There is also a lack
of consensus among experts regarding the classification of PGD and the diagnostic criteria. That
is why it is important for mental health professionals to critically evaluate the evidence and
weigh the benefits and risks of diagnosing PGD. Mental health professionals should also
consider individual differences in culture, societal norms, and personal experience when
assessing and treating individuals with grief reactions.

References

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders
(5th ed.).Arlington, VA: Author.

Prigerson, H. G., & Jacobs, S. C. (2001). Traumatic grief as a distinct disorder: A rationale,
consensus criteria, and a preliminary empirical test. In M. S. Stroebe, R. O. Hansson, W.
Stroebe, & H. A. W. Schut (Eds.), Handbook of bereavement research. consequences,
 coping, and care (pp. 613–645). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association
Press.

Prigerson, H. G., Horowitz, M. J., Jacobs, S. C., Parkes, C. M., Aslan, M., Goodkin, K., …
Maciejewski, P. K. (2009). Prolonged grief disorder: Psychometric validation of criteria
Proposed for DSM-V and ICD-11. PLoS Med, 6(8), E1000121.