While taking psychology courses in college I got the impression usually mental health issues stem from a combination of biological, environmental and social factors...I don't think its stated anywhere in psychology/psychiatry that mental health issues are only a result of biological factors.

Obviously mental issues are the result of brain functioning, but various causes go into making a brain dysfunctional. Like for instance chronic bullying throughout childhood combined with a genetic predisposition for depression might result in severe depression.....or maybe someone living a decent life starts feeling like crap all the time in which case it could be more biological than environmental or social. The brain is a very complicated place, as for the DSM it's used as a diagnostic tool but certianly not the only one...it would be unprofessional for a psychiatist to diagnose a disorder based on the DSM alone since it only gives a basic description of how the disorder may look and basic symptoms.

Not sure where the idea that the DSM is the only diagnoses tool comes from. Also the way some people talk about it it you'd think they're going to start rounding up everyone who's sad regardless of the reason and forcibly medicate them.....all because they came to the conclusion someone can still have depression even if they are grieving or that greiving/losing someone close might contribute to or trigger depression. As I've said if someone is greiving a loss and they know that they don't have to seek treatment.

Of course someone just grieving could receive a wrong diagnoses of depression, especially if they don't mention they are grieving a loss, but why go seek mental help if you know you're just greiving and there isn't something 'wrong' with you. Also before someone might be denied treatment due to being in a greiving process when I am sure there are some studies that show losing someone to death could worsen depression or maybe even trigger a depressive disorder those people shouldn't be denied treatment just because their grieving might explain some of it.

I guess I am also skeptical about if these reporters who write articles about the new DSM have actually read the book and the new edits or if they are just going on about a lot of hearsay because it makes for a good story...point is much of what we get is second hand information so how can anyone make an informed opinion on the new DSM in the first place?