This article implies, disingenuously, that depression must be thought of either as a chemical imbalance, or as a matter of personal laziness. In reality, there are a whole range of alternative positions. CBT, for example, might argue that depression is maintained through a self-reinforcing cycle of negative cognitions and avoidant behaviours, but that this cycle derives not from laziness but from negative cognitive schemata acquired in a traumatic childhood. Psychoanalysis traditionally argued that 'melancholia' was some kind of internalised, unconscious mourning - again, not laziness, but rather over-investment in the lost object. Various socially-informed approaches might look at the number and quality of a depressed person's relationships, the conditions of their employment or unemployment, the kinds of messages they internalise from society. None of this has anything to do with laziness.

Furthermore, it implies that people with depression do want to be told that there's something wrong with their brain. I'm sure there are many people for whom such diagnoses are a source of relief, but I'm equally sure that many people experience it as an unwarranted medicalisation of their mental and social problems.

And further still, I don't see how inculcating family and friends into the chemical balance worldview is necessarily going to make them any more tolerant or understanding of people with depression. There'd be fewer comments like "you're just lazy and ungrateful," but there'd be more along the lines of "that's just your disease talking" - and I don't see how the latter is any less invalidating than the former.

Other miscellaneous problems with the article:

But it’s far from obvious that being stuck in an unhappy marriage should drain your energy, drain your concentration, make you stop enjoying your hobbies, and finally drive you to suicide.

This is just ridiculous reasoning: 'Some unhappy marriages result in depression, some don't, therefore depression is biological.' The somewhat more plausible explanation that unhappy families often express their unhappiness in very different ways seems to have escaped the author's consideration.

Talk of biology tells people to shut off their normal intuitive ways of modeling the world.

Statements like this are why people are suspicious of psychiatry. Sure, some ways of understanding the world are stupid. But psychiatry, rather than challenging these views in the arena of rational debate, simply plays the scientific authority card and expects people to 'shut off' - and shut up.