To answer your bump:
Yes, it's a symptom of love - you love them, you lose them, the loss hurts. But if you keep the pain going for too long when you could fix it, you will disrespect their memory in a massive way.

yes I can admit I had love for them, I just did not feel a loss when they passed.

I felt it was because I had said goodbye to them in my own way.

Perhaps an Autist way of looking at things

Thanks for sharing.

I read somewhere that in some far eastern countries they throw money on the funeral pyres. Apparently the higher the denomination the greater the grief.
That is understandable but not very practical for an impoverished widow.

So now you can buy death money to throw on the pyre which is printed in very high denominations (millions and billions) but virtually worthless.
That I cannot understand.

There's nowt so queer as folk!

I usually go for the moments of silence...

I'm asking all parties to move on.

How long is too long for grief?

I think that the person grieving is the only one who can tell how long.  Like if they cannot go back to work and then can't buy food or take care of their kids....then I gues they need help.

Some people can and do manage to grieve for years and years - being sad at all the times they used to be with that person.

I do agree that if people need help and the help is medication, so be it.  I just don't like labels.

neither do I

Labels do have a place though - they help in categorising and understanding what we're talking about.

Aye, but labelling 15% of all people like they are intending to do is a statistic dreamed up from thin air.

You seem a bit caught up on that statistic, if it's accurate then why would it be a bad thing? If it's not accurate, why does it matter?

If it's accurate then people are still misusing the word grief when what they actually mean is depression. If it's not accurate since the proclomation was made by a man central to the group pushing this agenda then it means they are lying about the severity and are thus manipulating people.

I think its not a matter of either grief or depression. There is also something called 'complicated grief' which has been recognised for some time.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/...ated-grief

I think the article in the OP is very misleading and what they are trying to do is rename complicated grief and putting it into the DSM-V.

Please note that in my link they do not recommend antidepressants as a treatment for complicated grief.

Heterodox, I remember being told I would not recieve a stimulant like some people get for depression (antidepressants weren't working on me) because my depression was "complicated"...

It doesn't matter whether the figure is 1%, or 60%, or 15%. If people are suffering and they need help, then they need to be appropriately treated. Not ignored because of some dogma that it is natural and therefore should be left alone.

If they are suffering depression because of grief, why treat the depression rather than the underlying cause?