News Changing Ptsd To Ptsi?

[Shellbell]

I read an article that stated that in the USA, PTSD is now being re-classified as a psychiatric illness, like Bi-polar and schizophrenia, so that it isn't classed in the same category as depression (which is emotion based), as PTSD causes biochemical changes in the brain.

So, wouldn't changing it from a Disorder to an Injury appear the lesson the severity of PTSD, making it harder to get affordable counseling, disability payments for those so affected they can't work etc?

 

[PTSD sufferer]

So, wouldn't changing it from a Disorder to an Injury appear the lesson the severity of PTSD, making it harder to get affordable counseling, disability payments for those so affected they can't work etc?

That is a good question to ask Shell. I don't know anything about the US disability services and systems, so I wanted to ask a question back to you if that's ok? Can people with depression, bipolar or skitzophrenia, who can't work get government disability assistance? If they can, just as those who have a physical injury can get assistance who can't work, then I would like to think that it wouldn't change disability assistance because there is a legitimate need and the precedence is there. It is still a mental illness and debilitating for those who suffer.

Changing the name clarifies the 'cause' of the illness and focuses on it not being pre-existing, it doesn't lessen the illness, but I would hope that there may be more willingness to fund, through government assistanc etc an enhanced treatment, because it is better to treat for recovery so that later you may not need the assistance. A dollar today is worth more than a dollar tomorrow type thinking. Maybe better services for those who are at risk of PTSD would also happen, and there would be less trauma and more objective help and support for those whobare currently victims....optimistic view I know.

This May sound a little heartless, but policy makers tend to favor economical argument and i think there may be opinions leaders and advocates out there that would see the argument for investing more now in PTSDcare and treatment so that there will be less of a burden on the government assistance in the future - because it could be deemed more immediately treatable and then we are all getting better care and the right care, more immediately...as opposed to waiting for genetisicts to locate the sequences that cause each of the thousands of mental illnesses.....just an idea, but as to whether my optimistic view is shared by the government powers is an entirely different thing.

What impact do you think it will hav in policy makers?

 

[Shellbell]

I live in Australia and it's very difficult to get diability payments based upon PTSD, and they seem to disregard pychologist reports and base their decision on a 'work capacity interview' ( a gov't policy brought in, in the last 3 years), so if you don't get that right then you can be refused, and often PTSD sufferers are. Whereas, if you have a psychiatric illness like bipolar, you are pretty much guaranteed disability payment. This is really frustrating as a lot of people are unable to work with PTSD.

Also, if you have a psychiatric illness in Australia, you can see a psychiatrist free of charge, for PTSD you don't unless you have been hopitalized and are seen as a suicide risk. So, here it seems if they change it to a psychaitric disorder - which it arguably is - then better help would be given.

To be honest I don't really know enough about how this will effect policy makers, the only changes to policy here in Aus in the last 5 years have made it worse.

My concern is normal day to day living with PTSD. I'm not really bothered what they call it - I just want to get well and have the best support possible whilst going through therapy.

There has always been a stigma attached to mental health illnesses whatever they are, and that won't change if they call it an injury.

 

[anthony]

I read an article that stated that in the USA, PTSD is now being re-classified as a psychiatric illness, like Bi-polar and schizophrenia, so that it isn't classed in the same category as depression (which is emotion based), as PTSD causes biochemical changes in the brain.

Don't believe everything you read. PTSD is classified currently as an anxiety disorder, not a depressive disorder. Depression is a comorbid diagnosis to PTSD, as PTSD does not contain depression if it stands alone as more severe than isolating yourself.

PTSD is being reclassified globally, not just the USA, from an anxiety disorder to a stressor and trauma disorder. The APA have done that because anxiety is not mutually exclusive with PTSD as it is with other anxiety disorders. PTSD is the only diagnosis in the world that requires a criterion to be met from the environment in order for it to be diagnosed, being criterion A.

The chemical argument for the brain is also mute, and officially disproven via MEG studies on PTSD. They could not find a chemical balance, to imbalance in the first place. That was purely pharmaceutical companies hypothethis on depression, PTSD and other disorders, because imaging didn't exist to state otherwise. MEG has narrowed PTSD to the pre-frontal cortex of the brain, not right or left, or chemical balances... they don't know much further than that at this point in time... not unless new data has been released in the last month or two that I haven't got to yet.

PTSD and DID are the two most controversial diagnoses to date, both for different reasons. PTSD is legally, as being diagnosed with it proves a legal burden of proof, being the person was exposed to a traumatic event. That makes it harder to disprove in a court of law, as once diagnosed a professional has stated that traumatic occurrence exists.

DID is due to multiple personalities and whether they truly exist or are more a paranoid fabrication internally to express different ideas, obtain attention, etc. It is also over-diagnosed on a massive scale, making it that much more controversial again.

For legal and insurance purposes... PTSD Sufferer tended to hit that nail on the head, being politically bureaucracy can tend to trump everything else if a buck is to be saved by the Government / important enough companies.

Anthony, perhaps you need to take a step back and re-read the original post and the posts on this thread.

I have read them... differing opinion is not an issue. What is of issue is that you want evidence, it is provided, you dismiss it and respond with at an emotional basis instead.

Please provide evidence to substantiate your statements, as requested prior, and still not produced by you. Just more emotional aimed words.

I don't want to write too much, as it seems you lose the above point every time, being the question to provide evidence of your statements.

PTSI is an emotional plea, simple as that. I've read their request, I've read their arguments, and it isn't based on factual mental health data or definition, it is skewed and curbed to only include half the story, being what they want to present. It is the typical thing seen when someone wants to be politically correct... being half the full scope.

There is no bias... if I thought for a second that Injury was the better term based on the information provided, I would absolutely state it. But going on what has been provided, it isn't there. It is emotional, politically correct, nonsense.

I will ask again... please provide some evidence to support your opinionated arguments.

 

[anthony]

This is really frustrating as a lot of people are unable to work with PTSD.

A lot of people are also able to work with PTSD, at all severities. That argument goes both ways, thus an employment assessment isn't wrong from a disability viewpoint IMHO.

Also, if you have a psychiatric illness in Australia, you can see a psychiatrist free of charge, for PTSD you don't unless you have been hopitalized and are seen as a suicide risk. So, here it seems if they change it to a psychaitric disorder - which it arguably is - then better help would be given.

Mental health is progressively improving here, as you know if you watch the reports on that. Though I do agree, it has a long way to go. Mental health coverage has improved a great deal for those with health insurance, that is for certain. It is no different though than dental, being partial coverage due to cost versus tax ratio.

The Government can't pay for everyone disabled, for every issue they have. That would break any Government and make a country useless. Greece is a classic example of that right now. You are covered here for sickness, injury, and everyone is treated pretty much the same for life threatening illnesses. Commonsense must prevail though, and some things have to give. Seeing a psychologist through the mental health system is better than nothing, counsellors, etc. At some point if you want the best of things, then you have to work for them, otherwise you accept what is offered.

Places like America and China don't have what we have for disability... so whilst it can be complained about, at the same time you should also think yourself lucky that we get what we have here compared to other countries around the world. I've seen the UK and USA system, and we really do have it exceptionally well compared to them both.

 

[Shellbell]

I received a private message saying that I need to adhere to the forum rules. I'm sorry if I have said something inappropriate, but as there was no explanation of what that was, could someone please let me know - so that I don't make the same mistake?

 

[anthony]

Ask questions in the help desk forum please.

 

[PTSD sufferer]

I will ask again... please provide some evidence to support your opinionated arguments.

LOL. Are you seriously asking me to provide evidence of an opinion???

Dude, you are just digging yourself a deeper hole here. 'Flamming', is more of an emotional response to the situation than me offering my opinion. My opinion is, I will repeat yet again, that 'I can see the PTSI groups point of view'.

If you are so set on genetics, then perhaps you should provide evidence (statistical is preferable) to try to convince everyone otherwise. Certainly, the evidence you have already provided has actually stated the 'current' view is that PTSD is not genetic, it is insufficient to support your view. A list of names is not evidence either, it is a glossary.

Saying that I take responsibility and stay in control of my cognition and behaviours is not emotional, but rather exactly what the treatment is for PTSD - CBT. If you want to say your illness is genetic, then that is your choice and opinion, but you will have to do better with your own argument to be convincing.

'Flamming' and 'evidential demands' are not argument, rather an intimidation tactic to aggravate people into submission. When you provide argument and opinion without the 'flamming' I might just consider discussing the topic with you further. But until that time, I would rather hear the opinions of others on the topic of the PTSI group. So, I'm just going to ignore you until then.

I don't want to see the current 'flamming' taint those that are interested in offering opinions on the topic, so maybe you could start a debate thread when you have all your stuff together? Let's leave it at that.

 

[anthony]

The PTSI site lists some evidence in an attempt to support. I will keep this simple... what is your evidence that substantiates your thought process.

Maybe you should read the prior content, as you keep raising a statement about how I am focused on PTSD being about genetics, when I clearly cited that the evidence comprises both environmental + genetics, not one or the other.

So for an injury, it is purely environmental and you must discard genetics for an injury.

Your opinion is actually stated, you're saying "I can see the PTSI groups point of view."

Ok... how? When their argument is purely focused on environmental (injury) and discarding the facts (genetics + environmental).

You can't argue for one side only when both are factually present.

Please stop with the emotional flaming nonsense, as you are starting to annoy me now. If you cannot debate without the nonsense psychological flaming angle, then please do not participate within it.

I am open to all new and interesting things, changes, with PTSD... what I'm dismissive of is nonsense that concludes no factual evidence to correctly cite itself as a credible argument. That is what they're trying to do I believe, provide a credible argument to see change. No problems with that... so... where is the credibility that you can see that demonstrates this?

Please show me... paint me a picture that PTSD is only about an injury, thus genetics must be dismissed if related to as an injury, as genetics have nothing to do with environmental injuries.

 

[PTSD sufferer]

I live in Australia and it's very difficult to get diability payments based upon PTSD, and they seem to disregard pychologist reports and base their decision on a 'work capacity interview' ( a gov't policy brought in, in the last 3 years).

Also, if you have a psychiatric illness in Australia, you can see a psychiatrist free of charge, for PTSD you don't unless you have been hopitalized and are seen as a suicide risk. So, here it seems if they change it to a psychaitric disorder - which it arguably is - then better help would be given.

Oh, I see. What a horrible situation to be in, you are not alone in wanting propper treatment and good support. There have been times when I have felt like I am standing in a packed out football stadium, screaming and no one is listening. Governments tend to cock things up quite a bit, there may be good intentions in the law, but it is always behind the 8 ball when it comes to professional industries. This is one of the big draw backs of governments all over the world.

I do think that Medicare is a little bit better than the NHS (free uk health care) though, as at least you can be seen by someone by paying part of the bill, when in the UK you pay nothing but may not be seen for a year, and then you would only see a psychiatrist twice and a social worker the rest of the time. People complain about lobbyists, but considering how much lobbying and the amount of time in lobbying to have breast cancer hit their radar and get funding and action, then we have a lot to be grateful to lobbyists for. It is not surprising that this funding was given to a private hospital, rather than to Australia's government scientific research body.

I read the Disability Assistance Act in Australia, and it seems the only change in law is that those with disability don't have to face the punishment (of removal of disability) if they can't make an appointment with Centerlink. The Law notes the interview process, which is a bit more about promoting working, rather than who gets and who doesn't. It is more about if you can work a little, isn't that better for you? I would say maybe better for the government economically, but not necessarily better for you as an individual. However, the law does recognise that you are entitled to assistance, even if it is a 'not for life' scenario.

http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01510236?term=ptsd forum&rank=1

So, I think the problem is those that are to interpret the law, the government agencies and their workers and whether PTSD is classified as a disability by them. It is seriously shameful that a receptionist at Centerlink does the interviewing, rather than a mental health professional. These people are only trained to get you a job, not to understand disabilities of the mind. They can't disregard a Psychiatrists report though.

I think they are just making your life difficult, because they can. Give a government receptionist a bit of power and tell them they are helping people by making them work, not to mention their own framing (making an assessment based on prejudice of a 'type' of person without getting to know them) of anyone who walks in the Centerlink door. I see this framing all the time, all I have to do is tick a box that says 'do you currently or have you ever had a mental illness' and then I don't get listened to because they have already framed me as a nut job for having a mental illness. I'm pretty sure I didn't look like a 'typical nut job' that day - I did bath and brush my hair :).

I guess what I am saying to you is that there is no legal reason reason why you would be denied disability assistance if you have a letter from a psychiatrist saying you can't work. Maybe, the Centerlink moron is going through the motions of the interview, so that they can fill in their forms and tick their boxes of having, themselves, 'done a good days work'.

If they deny you disability, then call and ask to speak to a manager, because they can't do this when you have a psychiatric report. We have to be assertive when it comes to our rights and health.

I do think it is just wrong that they claim you can't get free Psychiatric support because it is PTSD and not Schizophrenia. Based on the Act related to Disability assessment, they only assess lower order functions like bathing, eating and behaviour (but I am pretty sure they don't know how to assess the behaviour component). So, I had a read through the Psychiatric ATT which provides a definition of what is legally deemed as a Psychiatric disorder. It says ' defined as the abnormal functioning of an organ or body system and includes mental illness and cognitive impairments'.

http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01510236?term=ptsd forum&rank=1

I see no reason why they would deny you disability assistance and psychiatric care of any other mental illness, particularly if you have a letter from a Psychiatrist. Perhaps contacting the ATT is worth your while? Like I said, sometimes it is worth while being assertive and standing up for our own physical and mental wellbeing. The government receptionists certainly don't know the law or mental health.

I'm not knocking Centrelink, there are some benefits to it (it has some things right but imperfect), and I have two friends who worked at Centerlink - one was a primary school teacher and the other a human resources graduate. That tid bit is just for context purposes.

I am seeing your point of view Shell and I am really feeling that changes at a legal and policy administrative level are always needed. But more so, just to be listened to, acknowledged and not discriminated against would be nice. The illness needs to be acknowledged and popper care and support given, and it sadly sounds like it isn't.

 

[Elph]

Shellbell I agree that what you're asking is a really good question. Sorry my attention span is not great right now so I didn't read your entire post but here's my two cents for what it's worth.

Any insurance company, whether government or private is going to do what it can to control its costs. Playing with language and labels is a big component to how they do this (not to mention getting unqualified ppl making decisions). Ask anyone injured on the job, workplace insurance will play the same games with those who have a chronic back injury. It's sad but inevitable. I don't know about your situation specifically but I think that it always challenging to get support for a chronic condition from a bureaucracy -- whether it's called a disorder or an injury -- because it's expensive. A variety of different 'labels' get stigmatized because the workers find them 'difficult to work with' or 'demanding' or whatever they need to come up with to make you go away. (Because denying ppl care somehow makes patients happy and easy to work with. Ha.).

I'm really interested to know if the PTSI group is including the realities ppl face in getting income support or funded treatment in their argument. I'm going to do some Googling on that and see what comes up.

Myself I still prefer the injury model because it had freed me from believing that I'm beyond hope, LOL. My symptoms have improved immensely since I stopped considering myself 'disordered'.

 

[Elph]

Okay this is interesting. Apparently the Canadian Services just took it upon themselves to incorporate the term 'injury' into their own approach. I tried to post a link but I guess I haven't posted enough yet to do that. They're calling it OSI - Operational Stress Injury.

Personally I think that if the Canadian military is having more success with treating their soldiers with the injury terminology, I would think that the psychiatric community would WANT to pay attention to the impact of the label (?).