←back to thread

Grief gets an expiration date, just like us

(bessstillman.substack.com)
461 points LaurenSerino | 4 comments | 18 Sep 25 14:17 UTC | HN request time: 0.321s | source
Show context
roughly ◴[18 Sep 25 15:54 UTC] No.45291209[source]▶
I say this with respect and love to the author: it does not sound like you’re handling this just fine. I think you’re right that there’s no way to handle this just fine, and you’re right that you’ve got a very good reason for not being just fine, and it’s in fact very normal and expected for you to not be handling this just fine, but it is also the case that you’re not handling this just fine.

I think we tend to react to being told there’s a diagnosis name for the thing we’re currently doing, but there are situations in which it is both absolutely normal, understandable, and expected that we behave in a way with the hallmarks of a particular pathology and also we are still behaving in that way and could probably use some support.

(On a more bureaucratic note, the other reason to have an actual DSM-recognized diagnosis is because the ghouls running insurance companies won’t cover counseling without it. Giving your therapist a DSM approved name to apply to your deep, life-impacting, and completely understandable grief means they have a better shot at convincing the claims department you actually do need help right now.)

replies(3): >>45291284 #>>45291331 #>>45292800 #
paddleon ◴[18 Sep 25 17:55 UTC] No.45292800[source]▶
the reason to NOT have a DSM-recognized diagnosis on your medical record is it can be used to disqualify you for things later in life.

And we cannot predict all of these future changes, either in our interests and/or the law.

"We don't want pilots with depression or anxiety, because duh obvious reasons" and there goes a career option for you. (something very like this happened to my cousin)

replies(1): >>45293557 #
1. hansvm ◴[18 Sep 25 18:54 UTC] No.45293557[source]▶
That's an interesting example. On the one hand, we really don't want actively suicidal pilots. On the other, are the current guidelines too stringent? I can't imagine you're saying that actively suicidal pilots should be allowed to fly hundreds of people, so the argument seems to be more that private corporations have too much information and too much power and are willing to blacklist qualified candidates just to reduce examination costs.

That seems more like an argument against corporate overreach than anything else.

replies(3): >>45294541 #>>45294576 #>>45296593 #
2. absurddoctor ◴[18 Sep 25 20:23 UTC] No.45294541[source]▶
The pilot restrictions definitely need a revamp. Any diagnosis or medication can greatly restrict you for a long time after, incentivizing avoiding treatment completely.
3. afthonos ◴[18 Sep 25 20:25 UTC] No.45294576[source]▶
The problem is that the policy incentivizes pilots who develop problems to hide them. So pilots who should take time off to work through problems are instead flying planes, because the alternative is losing their career.
4. roughly ◴[19 Sep 25 00:21 UTC] No.45296593[source]▶
> we really don't want actively suicidal pilots

We do not, and so providing pilots with the ability to seek help and support seems like what we'd want to do.

The degree to which mental health has been pathologized is unhealthy for those in need and for society at large.