It’s Complicated – Why Some Grief Takes Much Longer to Heal

The saying ‘time heals all wounds’ is only partially correct.

It’s a tragic fact of life that most of us will experience the loss of a loved one. Approximately 50 to 55 million people die worldwide each year, and it is estimated that each death leaves an average of five bereaved individuals. The experience of loss usually causes a range of psychosocial reactions, such as withdrawal from social activities, deep sadness, confusion about one’s role in life, and bursts of loneliness. In the acute phase of bereavement, these types of grief reactions are often all-consuming, excruciatingly painful, and highly impairing. It can feel as if the love directed towards the deceased person suddenly loses its tangible object, leaving the bereaved individual with an intense emptiness.

Thankfully, over the longer term, most people, most of the time, have sufficient resources to adjust to their new life without the person they’ve lost. They don’t necessarily ‘get over’ their loss, but they learn to cope. Sadly though, this isn’t true for everyone. Accumulating research within psychiatry and psychology has shown that a significant minority of people – approximately one in 10 – do not recover from grief. Instead, the acute reaction persists over the longer term, leading to trouble thriving socially, mentally and physically.

The distinction between the typical and the more problematic version of grief can be illustrated through an analogy. Much like a physical wound usually heals on its own, even if it is painful and slow, most people recover from their grief without any specialised help. However, occasionally, a physical wound becomes inflamed, and we use ointments, creams and patches to aid the healing process. Similarly, complications can sometimes arise in the grief process, and extra help is then necessary to treat the ‘inflamed’ grief.


Also read: What ‘The Lion King’ Teaches Us About Children’s Grief


An intricate mix of individual and contextual factors can lead to the development of complicated grief reactions. Imagine Amy, a 50something woman living a quiet life with her husband and two teenage sons. While out for a jog, her husband has a sudden heart attack and falls to the ground. He receives cardiac massage from a passerby but is declared dead at the local hospital hours later. This hypothetical experience could initiate very different paths of grief for Amy.

In one scenario, we see an Amy who is profoundly affected by the loss in the acute period of grief. She uses an immense amount of time and energy to prepare the funeral, sort her deceased husband’s belongings, and adjust to life as a widow. Her workplace is very understanding of her situation as both her colleagues and supervisor support her and put arrangements in place to manage her absence. She works hard at getting her life back on track to give her children a happy childhood. Five years after her loss, she is highly engaged in an organisation working with the prevention of heart diseases. She still misses her husband tremendously, but she is grateful for the years they spent together.

Conversely, the shock and the trauma of her husband’s death could send Amy on a different path: she struggles with accepting the permanence of the loss and, even years after his death, keeps all her husband’s belongings untouched; her employers are unsympathetic, and she loses her job due to too many sick days and decreased work performance; and her continued low mood and lack of energy lead her friends and relatives to withdraw. In this scenario, Amy is unable to meet the demands of her sons, provoking loneliness, frustration and self-loathing; she shows no interest in the outside world, and is overwhelmed by an intense sadness that doesn’t decrease over time.

These contrasting hypothetical scenarios illustrate how susceptibility towards grief-related complications can vary depending on key factors (eg, level of social support, personal coping style, attainment of new interests after one’s loss). If a person experiencing complicated grief doesn’t receive appropriate support, further adverse consequences can develop, such as heightened risk of serious health conditions, impaired quality of life, and lower general functioning.

Research attesting to the distinctiveness of persistent grief and its associated adverse effects led the World Health Organization (WHO) in 2018 to decide to include a grief-specific diagnosis in their classification guidelines for mental disorders, known as the ICD-11 (International Classification of Diseases, 11th revision), which will be fully implemented in healthcare systems by 2022. The new diagnosis, termed ‘prolonged grief disorder’, is characterised by an intense longing for, or a persistent preoccupation with, the deceased, accompanied by intense emotional distress (such as blame, denial, anger, difficulty accepting the death, feeling one has lost a part of one’s self) and significant impaired functioning that persists beyond half a year after the loss.

As the ICD-11 begins to be implemented in the coming years, there is a need to disseminate information on the diagnostic criteria of prolonged grief disorder to healthcare professionals who are in contact with bereaved individuals at hospitals, hospices, intensive care units, and to general practitioners, to help them identify and offer appropriate support to those who need it.

Unfortunately, media headlines about the new ‘grief-diagnosis’ can imply that prolonged grief disorder considers all kinds of grief reactions as pathological. This is rather unfortunate as it might cause some individuals to hide or avoid their grief in an attempt not to receive a diagnosis. Also, preventive interventions directed toward normative grief reactions can be both ineffective and even contraindicated, making it vital that prolonged, complicated grief is not overdiagnosed.

The diagnostic guidelines developed by WHO are used by psychiatrists and psychologists throughout most of the world, and the addition of prolonged grief as an official mental disorder has several practical implications. Earlier, symptoms of prolonged grief disorder were often interpreted as signs of depression and treated by antidepressants, but these types of drugs have shown minimal effect in ameliorating grief symptoms. The recognition of prolonged grief disorder as a distinct phenomenon will hopefully ensure the appropriate allocation of effective psychosocial treatments.


Also read: Sometimes, Conforming Is the Best Way to Deal With Depression


Such approaches include an element of psychoeducation: informing the client of the healthy and more pathological versions of grief, and discussing therapeutic goals. People experiencing complicated grief often avoid people, situations or objects that remind them of the permanence of their loss, so some version of exposure is often used. Exposure might include retelling the story of the loss or identifying particularly disturbing memories that the person tends to avoid, and then gradually revisiting these memories within and between treatment sessions.

The final stages of therapy are often future-focused, working towards resumption of life without the deceased. This element emphasises establishing and maintaining a healthy bond to the deceased, including an acceptance that life continues, and targeted help to reengage in meaningful relationships.

The saying ‘time heals all wounds’ is only partially correct because, for severely inflamed wounds, time is not the solution. It is necessary to see a doctor and receive specialised treatment to aid the healing process. Bereaved individuals experiencing complications in their grief process often describe their situation as extremely numbing, overwhelming and debilitating. As shown in the case of Amy, one’s social network is a crucial factor.

While an understanding and supportive network can act as a protective factor against prolonged grief disorder, withdrawal from friends and family can create social isolation and increase feelings of meaninglessness, contributing to the development of prolonged grief disorder. It is essential to know that professional help is available. If you read this and recognise the symptoms of prolonged grief disorder in someone you know – or perhaps in yourself – seek out professional support because time does not heal all grief.Aeon counter – do not remove

This article was originally published at Aeon and has been republished under Creative Commons.

Featured image credit: Naqi Shahid/Unsplash

How Do You Know When Mental Healthcare Goes Awry and Causes Harm?

Questioning one’s self-worth is at the core of numerous mental health stressors, and accepting poor services can tie into it.

This article is part of a series that will explore how marginalisation and oppression can affect an individual’s mental health.

Apprehensions before starting therapy are not uncommon. Unlike a medical exam with a doctor that ends in 15 minutes, therapy is an intimate deep-dive into an individual’s life. A quote about how it’s about the journey may romanticise a scientific practice, but the reality is that the exploration that occurs during the process is as good as a journey because the individual is unlearning, relearning, evaluating and transforming narratives of their lives. Additionally, when a patient finds a right fit for their symptoms and stressors, the process becomes seamless and there is less room for exploitation.

The emphasis on therapeutic alliance is a part of the therapist’s training and is necessary for therapy to work. It’s about recognising patterns, understanding the impact of traumatic experiences, becoming acquainted with words like ‘gaslighting’, ‘depression’, etc., gaining agency through psychoeducation and jointly developing a treatment plan. Not everyone seeking and providing therapy is fixated on a diagnosis, but a focus on treating stressors is always crucial. We discuss how anxiety is a natural response when the body is attempting to protect itself. It is obvious that anxiety and suspicion are congruent with the mental state of someone seeking help for issues that are largely stigmatised and unrecognised in our communities.

Dismissing confidentiality

The discussion that follows is based on research founded on testimonies. The prompts include direct messages received on Twitter.

Confidentiality is a pillar of psychotherapy. Informed consent involves an exchange of information where the clinician should explain the contexts in which confidentiality does and does not apply. For example, if there is reason to believe an individual’s life is threatened by suicide or homicide, the clinician should clarify that they are required to report this information to the concerned authorities to protect the individual.

Such a conversation must happen at the beginning of the therapeutic relationship so that the individual is not taken by surprise or feel betrayed if information is disclosed. The dismissal of confidentiality leads to a rupture in the therapeutic alliance, and will likely deter the  individual from seeking help with mental health issues again.

Quality mental-health care is composed of active listening, emotional processing and validation. In this framework, and in my experience, individuals frequently bring up gaslighting as an issue. Gaslighting includes individuals being told by their therapists that they’re being dramatic, asking them to “get over it”, blaming them for their struggles and creating an environment of shame and even withholding information.

Also read: Sexual Violence Trauma Is Complex Because It Impinges on Multiple Identities

In one of my interactions, one person revealed that he was blamed for being depressed because he identified as a member of the LGBTQIA+ community and told that he should make better choices. This particular community is very marginalised in India, which could be one of the leading causes of depression in itself.

When a source of support and help aids a cycle of oppression through ignorance, stigmatisation and invalidation, depression will continue to worsen, with additional feelings of hopelessness and internalised shame. In another instance, I was informed that a person wasn’t informed about a change in her medication and that it was incongruent with the diagnosis provided. This is clearly deception and can lead to severely internalised anxiety and a fear of being lied to.  It could even result in some people refusing medication.

Over- and under-diagnosis

Therapy and psychiatric care are integrative but they also tend to overlap in India. Due to a shortage of psychotherapists and a heightened faith in medical professionals, individuals tend to seek therapy from their psychiatrists. Over-diagnosis can lead to overmedication, and also to additional stigma attached to specific diagnoses. As clinicians we are responsible for how we collect clinical data, monitor and educate the individual, and ensuring  the treatment plan is adaptable. If we fail at keeping ourselves in check, we’re also endangering the people we are responsible for.

For example, one study, published in September 2017, found that doctors may have been over-diagnosing bipolar disorder in India. It concluded that self-reporting and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders may not be the most reliable guides when collecting clinical data, and that patients have to be compulsorily monitored. In other words, doctors have to commit one hour every week to assess their wards. Under-diagnosis, on the other hand, can lead to poor management of the illness and poor access to resources, again endangering the individual’s health.

The larger and more diverse a population is, the more variegated the mental health issues as well as their stressors are. Marginalised groups are often taught to treat healthcare as a privilege, not as a right. However, good-quality healthcare is indeed a right.

Also read: Why We Need to Pay More Attention to Mental Health at the Workplace

At the same time, mental healthcare isn’t easily accessible in India, so if you’re reading this and feel averse to seeking help, remember that there are mental health resources that are reaffirming, supportive and dedicated to collaborative treatment approaches.

If you’re feeling uncomfortable with your current therapist, consider seeking a different one simply because you deserve better. There are plenty of clinicians who provide more efficient services.

It’s okay to take a step back after a bad experience with a mental health professional and normal to feel invalidated and failed by the system. Questioning one’s self-worth is at the core of numerous mental health stressors, and accepting poor services can tie into it. Help is often defined on the back of a Westernised model – with a power dynamic between a clinician and a patient – whereas there are other options for patients to develop treatment plans with. However, if a therapist/psychiatrist-patient modality seems worth a shot, try to utilise the anxiety and skepticism experienced at the beginning to your benefit.

For example, use the first few appointments to assess level of comfort, ask questions, clarify doubts and debate the approach the therapist plans to take. If a patient visits a doctor for an injured back and the doctor treats them for a sprained ankle, the mismatch is not going to yield the right treatment. Every clinician has their approach and finding the right fit is a process. Help needs to be interpreted and addressed in a language that the patient can understand and benefit from. It’s not an inconvenient method of practice. It’s the correct one.

Ruchita Chandrashekar is a licensed clinician in Chicago where she works with participants of a federally funded programme. Her expertise lies in LGBTQ+ mental health, sexual trauma and complex trauma recovery, mood disorders and personality disorders.