Relationship Ptsd Alternate Personality Specifics?

[Casey_03]

I have to agree with @EveHarrington and @joeylittle about this. It seems downright dangerous to imply that dissociation is not part of PTSD and therefore must point to some other disorder. Not true at all and very misguided. That would mean all PTSD sufferers who suffer flashbacks are suffering from some other disorder ....

 

[Anarchy]

Not true at all and very misguided. That would mean all PTSD sufferers who suffer flashbacks are suffering from some other disorder ....

But it might make a new market for a drug [/sarc]

 

[shimmerz]

But it might make a new market for a drug [/sarc]

lol. And who wouldn't want that????

 

[Amack]

I can not post the links but simply search for the "Highlights and changes
from DSM-IV-TR to DSM-5" .........and the article from the National Center for PTSD titled "Dissociation and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder" there are more but you can find them easily form credible sources we use them all the time in study.

My only point is and continues to be study don't assume. It is not a symptom as of yet. Throwing around diagnosis is dangerous. Is dissociation a co occurring diagnosis? Possibly. Especially with CPTSD. But even CPTSD has not been used by the DSM. Will it soon? I sure HOPE so! Do I believe DID coexist alongside CPTSD you bet. But again as of yet they are distinctive. I am continuing my education right now within this discipline and I can vouch that PTSD is highly debated and discussed, not for its relevance but for a better understanding of what all it entails. Not trying to be a nuisance or even argue....seriously only want to help and be helped.

@Amack - I think criterion B3 (DSM 5) references dissociative symptoms, and consi...

 

[Casey_03]

@Amack I think part of the concern is that the person who posted this thread seemed to be leaning toward the idea that his spouse (who has been diagnosed with PTSD) was actually suffering from DID. A lot of people gave feedback in which they warned against jumping to this conclusion, as it was dangerous to do so and DID is a very serious and rare diagnosis. So while many were cautioning against going down the DID rabbit hole, your comment seemed to want to send him back down it ... So, obviously it is great to study and not assume, but at the same time, the context here is pretty important.

 

[joeylittle]

My only point is and continues to be study don't assume. It is not a symptom as of yet.

I'm really not trying to derail this thread: but it is, in fact, a symptom. One can debate whether or not the re-experiencing cluster links to dissociation (as in, is a flashback a dissociated state?) - that would be an interesting semantic argument.

But there's a dissociative subtype of PTSD - defined as PTSD with dissociative symptoms. So, there is a bridge between dissociation and PTSD that has been articulated in the DSM-5. This subtype is specific about the dissociation being contained to depersonalization and derealization.

Ultimately, we are all saying the same thing - that self-diagnosis is to be avoided, that symptoms matter and cannot be taken out of proportion, and that dissociation itself is a challenging thing to quantify, since it exists on a very broad spectrum currently (unless I'm wrong, everything from mild depersonalization through the presence of non-co-conscious alters would be called 'dissociation').

Specifically, the manifestation of alter-personalities is not included as a symptom of PTSD currently - I think that was your main point, @Amack - am I right?

ref: http://www.dsm5.org/Documents/PTSD Fact Sheet.pdf

 

[Amack]

I'm really not trying to derail this thread: but it is, in fact, a symptom. One can debate whether...

Spot on!!

 

[Deleted member 17302]

The discussion is acceptable. I would like to point out that a categorization of something means that there is a set of traits that are POSSIBLE to exist within that categorization BUT are NOT always going to be there. Yes, there is a set of traits that must be present in order to be in a specific categorization, but the possible traits are just that, possible, not mandatory, in order to be in that category/classification.

Also as someone already mentioned, some traits overlap with certain other classifications and are more probable to be in that secondary category/classification when that happens. Classification and categorization is a topic that many debate over in all subject fields, however understanding what I have laid out in this reply is important in order to clearly see what is going on and helps aid in gaining clarity of categorization and classification conversations.

Please proceed if there is further discussion. This is only to aid the conversation. The main topic was in fact to root out these specifics, so there is no derailment as far as I can see. It seems pretty on topic.

 

[EveHarrington]

I can not post the links but simply search for the "Highlights and changes
from DSM-IV-TR to DSM-5" .......

I think it would help if you researched exactly what dissociation is as it appears that you're in the "the only type of dissociation that exists is the existence of alters as in DID" camp. This couldn't be further from the truth. Dissociation happens in pretty much everyone. It's not a phenomenon that only happens in the highly disordered. Dissociation is only a disorder (or part of a disorder) when it reaches clinical levels. People with PTSD can experience a certain level of dissociation (not alters). Higher levels of dissociation will be given a separate diagnosis such as DDNOS or DID.

I simply cannot believe that the phenomenon of dissociation as a whole is at risk for being thrown out of a PTSD diagnostic given the extensive means by which practitioners test for dissociation in clients with PTSD.

Again, back to the topic on hand, DID happens only after extreme childhood abuse in most cases, so I'm not sure why it's being suggested as a viable option for someone with one incident trauma whose symptoms fall within the scope of PTSD.

OP, bottom line, dissociation is very much a part of a basic regular PTSD diagnosis. (It is very clearly stated in the diagnostic criteria for PTSD and anyone who argues otherwise is either mistaken or flat out rejecting the prevailing criterion for diagnosing PTSD.) I would start with the assumption that her dissociation is within the scope of PTSD and do as much research as you can. Ultimately, in the end, only a qualified mental health practitioner can tell you if her dissociation is more than PTSD. Given the ultimate rarity of DID, especially in one off trauma, I wouldn't pursue it as a viable option. (Can anyone tell me if there even is a well documented case of DID happening in someone who has only been traumatized once?)

 

[Deleted member 17302]

Again, back to the topic on hand, DID happens only after extreme childhood abuse in most cases, so I'm not sure why it's being suggested as a viable option for someone with one incident trauma whose symptoms fall within the scope of PTSD.

You are assuming there isn't other trauma history present. If there was, I would not be able to disclose such information here.

 

[Casey_03]

But isn't it safe to assume that if she did in fact have DID there would have been signs of it prior to her latest bailing? I mean, real, big signs, not just her acting slightly different than she normally would. She would have suffered episodes of lost time and extreme confusion, no?

 

[Amack]

I think it would help if you researched exactly what dissociation is as it appears that you're in...

I think we are saying the same thing really. I was making distinction that DID is more common with CPTSD not PTSD (a one time trauma or event) as you said,but is still distinctively separate. I really do think we are all saying the same thing and trying got make the accurate distinctions. I have never done a case study with one trauma and DID but I am only a student. Again, I would like to say psychology in itself is an evolving disciplinary so with better understanding comes new and well studied cases. I would actually love to see PTSD changed to PTSI as we are actually seeing an injury to the brain....and it would be so beneficial for many diagnosis to be interdisciplinary instead of commonly using one....and :facepalm: now I am way of subject...blah blah

again, I think we are suggesting the same thing for the most part.:tup: