Why have I been thinking about grief?

I was in a pub and asked the pretty barperson what was her worst moment
in life. It was the death of someone close to her.

This got me thinking about the application of real scientific methods to
find the truth of grief. These are not psychiatric methods. Those are
pseudoscience. I pondered how true science would apply itself to the
problem of death and emotional responses.

I have no answers but the grief caveat for depression is one of those
interesting holes in the biomedical science of psychiatry. Depression is
common after someone dies but it is not to be treated by drugs. This is
how it used to be anyway. If I remember right drugs couldn't be used for
6 months.

I wondered why the limit was 6 months? I wondered if there was any
evidence to support this limit over 5 or 7 months?

I also wondered if the grief caveat for depression treatment was there
as an example of psychosanology - the understanding of wellness of the
mind. 2 weeks is the limit for depression but if the supposed biomedical
illness was caused by a bereavement then it shouldn't be treated as
depression for 6 months (except if there was a serious risk of suicide)
because psychiatrists in the late 20th century saw a purpose to the
suffering, or perhaps they just made an arbitrary judgement on what was
acceptable after a death?

There is a theory that depression is a form of grief and yet
psychosanological thought has not been applied to attempt to see the
value in misery - be it a biomedical or biopsychosocial problem.

Earlier cultures have had a lot more wisdom about suffering. It was a
piece of native American wisdom which sums it up so well.
"The soul would have no rainbow unless the eyes had tears."

But this is not science. This is, perhaps, a better answer for most
people in the absence of science. But it is not science.