Reply to comment

I think the idea of depression as a symptom is very interesting, but I am not sure that I am willing to accept it just yet.

Symptoms usually describe a specific bodily phenomenon that indicate a larger problem (disease, illness, etc.). As it is currently used, the clinical defintion of depression encompasses too many other conditions and states of being to be a symptom. (Unless there can be symptoms of symptoms?) Specifically, the DSM requires that patients meet a number of criteria simultaneously for an extended period of time (depressed mood, loss of interest, fatigue, recurrent thoughts of death, insomnia or hypersomnia, etc.) in order for the patient to be diagnosed as depressive. This is not to say that the DSM is the definitive source on depression, but  to argue that we would have to define depression using more exclusive terms if we wanted to call it a symptom. While depression might be a symptom of a larger (unnamed?) disease, the term "depression" is too vague to be labeled as a symptom.

Despite my opposition to depression being labeled as a symptom, I think it is worthwhile to consider depression as a more generic term for a class of illnesses that may arise from a number of causes. By doing so we do not constrict ourselves to identifying two individuals as having the same illness when their symptoms may manifest themeselves in very different patterns and may require different treatments.  To make this argument, however, implies that physicians should consider cases of depression as sharing certain potentially linked conditions. Is this useful and (just as importantly) relevant?