A disease is basically a specific thing that's doing harm to the body. For example, H1N1 is a disease because it's a specific thing. AIDS, on the other hand, is not a disease because it's caused by HIV, or one of a few other things.

With depression, there are several things that can cause it: several known nutritional deficits, prescription medications, chronic illness, lack of social interaction, lack of exercise, poor diet, stress, etc. And similarly, the vast majority of people respond better to treatments that don't involve drugs.

There almost certainly are some people who do have underlying problems in their brain, but even still the depression is a symptom of whatever this disease is; calling depression itself a disease not only prevents the people without biological problems from getting care (the vast majority), but it also prevents scientists from looking for the root cause of the biological problems in the people who do have them.

I think calling something a disease, or as with obesity in america, an epidemic, serves to alarm people and local governments and does a lot more good than harm.

Also, I don't know what root cause you're looking for beyond correcting the imbalances in serotonin, norepinephrine and dopamine.

I'm not sure if fixing the modern world's tendency towards crowding, emotional isolation, biologically toxic environments and stress is really in the jurisdiction of my physician.

It's just a name though.

Disease seems to be used to cover loads of things that IMHO aren't really diseases these days - eg alcoholism, obesity.

I think maybe it's to excuse the person of any guilt - "I can't help it! I have a disease"

"It's just a name though."

But the claim is almost always "Depression is a disease caused by a biological problem in the brain." And the solution is usually just drugs.

Sure, true. I've never believed it's as simple as that - people get depressed for a ton of different reasons, and the 'cures' are as wide and varying. Surely most people think this?