News Note to colleagues: please stop saying post traumatic stress is incurable

[Friday]

I don't know that it's a diagnostics issue so much as a spectrum issue - and I see PTSD very much on a spectrum from folk who are badly impacted by an individual trauma, have a secure base/sense of self to return to and who do recovery after a period of time to people who have experienced chronic trauma, with no sense of pre-trauma self who struggle significantly.

Spectrum definitely parses, much better. Thank you!

I think the problem is both areas... diagnostic and spectrum. PTSD is not a life long disorder, it is a disorder that once you get, you are predisposed to the remainder of your life when experiencing later trauma.

& that makes sense.

Although I don't know if it's the media, in this instance, so much I seem to knee-jerk into black&white definitions. That they use some sexy simplistic headline just makes that process easier, to take the opposing view. :wtf: I've got this here hammer, and they just keep giving me nails. Makes it easy to forget about screws. But that's more on me, and my own thinking, than them.

 

[anthony]

I don't believe any media agency, especially not one as large as this specific example, put little or simple thought into a title or the contents. These are researched, edited, ongoing edit, to get the most bang for their buck from a single article. They would look at every word, every sentence, and be looking for the most impact at all times to engage their reader and thus... subsequent debate like this after the fact, talking about their article.

 

[J'qel]

PTSD when it is an easily identified situation, when it a situation unlikely to occur again, and the individual gets the help they need fast and reliably-sure it can go into remission.

That is *far* from the average.

It's like the people claiming that cancer is cured by orange juice. You hear about one patient who goes into remission after drinking tons of OJ, and everyone praises the orange and hails it as a cure. It's not. For some reason, his cancer went into remission or his body fought it off.

Keep in mind humans are not one size fits all *by any means*. We all have some very individual chemistry and reactions. Sure, there's a baseline and a typical response to certain things, but once you get into things like brain chemistry, it's particularly complicated.

And yes, popular headlines are known for making things simpler than they are, though often once you read the body, it ends up being an "oh...so headline was clickbait and body of article really doesn't say anything." I've been caught on that a few times, since I like science and medical articles. Pop science sometimes makes me want to shake journalists (for all the good it does making science and medicine more popularly supported).

 

[J'qel]

Back-I just read it.

It's a sneaky piece.

1-they do call it PTS-NOT PTSD
2-they're confusing the two frequestly in the article
3-they talk about learning coping skills and referring to the learning of those skills as the "cure"
4-there's no mention of the actual biology of PTSD
5-they're referring to an *unpublished* study (this means it hasn't even had to be vetted by other scientists yet for truth, accuracy or methods)
6-their primary case that they're referring to is people who saw 9/11 (so a very specific set of circumstances)

 

[StormySea]

I should point out, I did not read the article. I only read the question in the post. It would...

It is a pretty long, involved article. I don't blame you for not reading it. I still appreciate your most valuable input! Thank you. :-)

 

[Friday]

@anthony LMAO... Wha? The media uses psychology against us in order sell papers & create debate? What next? Psych in Advertising?!? :eek:

Also known as, good point.

I'm still gonna blame myself on this one. I may be a mark, but that doesn't mean I have to be an easy mark.

Besides. It really has been driving me crazy for awhile. Spectrum + Dx makes things click, though. Or at least stop grating.

 

[J'qel]

Hehe no worries. I'm glad you brought it to my attention, HuffPo is one of my news sources (not one of my main ones, but..) and seeing this I was terribly disappointed in them, though I suppose I shouldn't have been :P

 

[anthony]

Hehe no worries.

Who are you talking to? Nobody reference you after your posts for this type of comment.

 

[J'qel]

...

I was making a comment where I didn't think it was a worry.

I was also stating that *I* was glad it was posted and why.

If you are particularly worried, you can certainly say so. I apologize if it does cause you worries and you felt I was jumping the gun. Where I am from "no worries" means generally that it isn't a big deal, and it's not meant as something personally offensive.

My apologies if this was not the case for you.

 

[EmmaOwl]

:) It's true. I have read about how the two terms are referring to different things. I'm pretty sure...

bad editing.

I'm not sure the DSM V does specify that PTSD is a lifelong condition

Does the DSM EVER mention what is a lifelong condition and what not? I know there are lengths of times specified for diagnoses to be made, but I can't recall ever seeing anything say how long a certain disorder is likely to last. ?

 

[EmmaOwl]

I think "intractable" is a good word to describe PTSD, especially when people are talking about cPTSD as they do on this site. Difficult to deal with, treatable but expected to last a long time if not forever. Not likely to go away. It leaves a teeny tiny bit of wiggle-room between curable and incurable.

 

[StormySea]

I should have started this thread by asking if you agree that people should stop saying that PTSD is INCURABLE instead of asking if you agree that PTSD is CURABLE, because that was misquoting the author. She never said that it's "curable." She said you can "recover" from it and you can "significantly reduce, not just manage, its symptoms." This thread has shown me how important semantics can be!

I think it's a good article. I see no reason to believe the author was sneaky or had anything other than good intentions in choosing the title and delivering a positive message meant to give people hope. Treatment of patients who were traumatized by 9/11 is just one of many things she talks about. She doesn't base her entire premise on those patients. She also talks about combat veterans and victims of sexual abuse. The article mentions a large number of different treatments and pinpoints the ones that the most successful recoveries have in common. Its conclusions are based on a lot more than one "unpublished" study. They are based on treatment experiences of the author as well as other doctors and professionals. Many examples are given. The article actually does mention the biology of PTSD according to my understanding of that phrase. As far as I can tell it's only mistake is using post-traumatic stress and post-traumatic stress disorder interchangeably.