The tragic event that recently gave death to the passengers of 320 flight to Germanwings – started from Barcelona and never arrived in Dusseldorf – and its author, the pilot Andreas Lubitz, raises many issues.
One of these, not the first in importance but not even the last one, is the reflection on the news disclosed by some media that the suicide-homicidal pilot suffered from depression.
I don’t find a strange to mention one psychiatric diagnosislegitimate and unfortunately concerns a situation that is part of the things in the world.
The lightness, far from naive, with which sometimes i Average deal with the theme “Depression” And the neglect in predicting the consequences that are determined in society.
It does not want to be a general attack on the media or the journalistic class consisting of many respectable people. Meanwhile, I would start from the utility that has the formulation of the diagnosis in the psychiatric field.
Diagnosis is an important component of communication that is established between the psychiatrist and the patients or colleagues. The diagnosis is essential to make logical decisions concerning which intervention to undertake or if it is appropriate not to intervene at all.
There diagnosis It reassures the patient on the fact that his situation is not unique, which is not something strange, mysterious and inexplicable; that there is a wealth of knowledge that can bring some form of help. Diagnosis can reduce feelings of guilt or guilty. It can overcome vague concepts like that of “weakness of character”.
The diagnosis can help to accepted to be “different” or not to work as the majority of people. It can reduce feelings of shame and poor self -esteem. It can improve the dialogue between professionals and public administration regarding the necessary supports and services. It can make people who have the same problem in contact. And much more.
Despite all these utilities, every sufficiently crushed psychiatrist is always well aware of the Limits of diagnostic categories.
He knows the importance of looking at the person and the situation well beyond the diagnosis. Knows well that The diagnosis itself never says anything If it is not enriched with information regarding the personal history of the subject, the events that have accompanied the decompensation phase, the type of symptoms, gravity and the level of functional impairment, the level of adherence to therapeutic paths.
So for the above psychiatrist the diagnosis of “depression” does not mean much if not accompanied by other information regarding the personality structure, the way in which the treatments are followed, the presence or absence of suicidal ideation – we know well that not all depressed think about suicide – the presence of psychotic symptoms, the number of crises had in the course of life, the levels of operation in the intercritic phases, the presence or less. of anxious spectrum disorders, alcohol abuse or drugs. Just to name a few.
There is no depression but the person suffering from depression And in any case there is always talk of a disorder that, if well cared for, can lead to a favorable prognosis with an excellent percentage of positive responses. The cases deemed serious or resistant to therapies are always a minority compared to the forms that respond positively to the treatments.
If so for a psychiatrist is the same for the listener or medium reader? It is not very likely. Much more likely is that in society, seeing associate the term depression with serious news eventsthe thought, dangerous and false, that the depression in itself leads to commit the serious facts reported by the media is insinuated. Meanwhile, it follows an increase in diffidence towards subjects really affected by this pathology and the stigma that comes out reinforced.
There is theanguish of those next to a subject suffering from depression or of the person himself at the only thought that could be committed horrible facts just like those reported by the media, up to the real development of obsessive fears of aggression. This can lead to refusing a contact with a specialist and care to not feel “you have a depressive disorder”.
Unfortunately the problem is not numerically negligible if we consider that the World Health Organization provides that in 2020 the depression will be Among mental diseases the most widespread in the world And after cardiovascular diseases the most frequent disease in general.
For the media to say that Andreas Lubitz was suffering from a serious form of psychic disorder, instead of speaking improperly and simplistic about depression, would he have limited their duty or right of information?
The question is rhetoric because we know well that the answer is: no. But you know that talk about depression intrigues The public, much more than a vague form of serious psychic disorder, and this involves an increase in the audience or some copy sold.
There is no descriptive superficiality, a carelessness, by the media who have adopted this term but a precise intent that, in order to achieve the objectives set, ignores the ethical and practical consequences that derive from it.
It has already happened with other news events, which had nothing to do with depression, and we prepare for similar cases that will happen.
This is also a form of crime that kills the mature reflection on what depression is And what can really derive from this.
Yet more and more often the media continue to label everything as depression. “Which Prodest” – “who benefits” – asked Seneca. Certainly this does not help to depressed people, family members and the evolution of society.
For the curious, the complete phrase of Seneca was: “which Prodest Scelus, is fecit”, “the crime committed him to whom it benefits”.
