see:
https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/depression/index.shtm...
http://images.pearsonclinical.com/images/assets/basc-3/basc3...
Psychiatric diagnoses are not "just like any other disease". Medical pathology is objective science, psychiatry is subjective postulation.
>In 2013, Frances said that "psychiatric diagnosis still relies exclusively on fallible subjective judgments rather than objective biological tests".
The point being: it's a much higher standard of diagnosis than the catch-all term "depression".
"The Tissue Transglutaminase Antibodies blood test will be positive in about 98% of patients with celiac disease who are on a gluten-containing diet."
https://celiac.org/celiac-disease/understanding-celiac-disea...
There are biological tests/indicators that are conducted for all of these pathologies.
That's a conceit that only someone who has neither experienced nor been exposed to severe mental illness can hold. One cannot interact with someone that is floridly psychotic and not come to the conclusion that, while the specific diagnostic criteria may be subjective, there is something objectively wrong with that individual's biological functioning.
Without any objective scientific proof, this is at best theoretical, and at worst mythological.
Such an arrogant assumption has led to horrible conclusions:
That's just plain wrong on the optometry part. While there is a lot of self-reporting used in optometry because it's faster and easier, it's entirely possible to remove it, because you can't fake not being able to read stuff when your vision is too blurry. How do you think the DMV tests your vision? It's not self-reporting; they show you something that you don't know beforehand and you have to read it. Optometrists also use vision tests to gauge your vision as they try different lenses. If they really wanted to, they could move from static tests that you can memorize to dynamic ones to prevent "cheating", but why would anyone cheat on an optometry exam (like they really would for the DMV)?
Just being left in the exam room for 30 seconds unobserved would be enough.
No, you can't. Sure, you can memorize the optometrists' eye charts now, but that's because they're not expecting anyone to try to cheat, and just use some printed charts. Why would they expect someone with ill intentions? You're paying them to help you see optimally.
However, at the DMV, they absolutely can test you properly, because their machines (at least the last one I used a couple years ago) can change all the letters around however they want, and presumably every test is different (within the maximum number of combinations, which is surely too high to memorize). They're actually expecting people to try to cheat there, so they don't just use a single printed wall chart, they have a special device you stick your head in.
> I was just struggling with a transitional period in my life
Why shouldn't that cause serious depression, and why shouldn't someone need antidepressants for it?
To your second point I would say that a struggle shouldn't necessitate a clinical diagnosis. Life is full of struggle, and equating struggle to depression to medication is why we're in the overprescription business in the first place.
> I would say that a struggle shouldn't necessitate a clinical diagnosis. Life is full of struggle, and equating struggle to depression to medication is why we're in the overprescription business in the first place.
I know critics repeat that narrative often but I haven't seen evidence of it actually happening. That is, I haven't heard anyone say, 'struggle is a sufficient condition for the diagnosis of depression', and I'm almost certain that the standards for diagnosis in psychology/psychiatry are much higher than that.
> overprescription
I'm not sure that's true either. Certainly there are always some false positives, but what is the rate? The evidence does indicate there are very many false negatives, people who need help and are not getting it.
I suspect the narrative of overprescription for psychological conditions is based in part on two things: 1) People with preconceived negative attitudes toward mental health care, and 2) variation from the norm they are accustomed to, which is that few or no people received mental health treatment.
Regarding the latter reason, perhaps there was a problem with the old norm; perhaps many more people need mental health care than we knew. When there is a new treatment for cancer, we don't say 'it's overprescribed; in the old days we toughed it out.' We don't say that about lead in water. If it's helping people, it's a good thing, and I want to society to move forward, for people to be healthier and happier and not be stuck in the conditions of the 1970s (or whatever the baseline is).