Lets Create A Ptsd Diagnosis

[lostforgottensoul]

Ok, question. Should the electronic media be exclusionary, when the criterion A is otherwise inclusionary?

Great question, I go back and forth. I see the 'forced' part in the violence but then again, in of itself is traumatizing.

I guess the question lies, if not forced as say a child, would that be traumatizing enough or if forced is classified under violence.

 

[anthony]

Maybe we need to come at it the other way and try and define the symptoms first?

Oh... don't get me wrong, I have seriously thought, and even still do now, to take an entirely different approach where symptoms come first through a networked system, and meeting trauma specificity is down the list with other factors that would guide you to the specific diagnosis. But then that is really a diagnostic process versus diagnosis.

 

[anthony]

or text, unless the exposure is of significant frequency and duration.

This also makes me nervous... basically stating that anyone who grows up reading horror novels, and then becomes symptomatic later in life, is diagnosed PTSD with those raped, tortured, so forth... all from reading books only their entire life. Just scary ones.

This is the problem with criterion A. Does that person who inflicted themselves with PTSD from reading books their entire life have the right to the same diagnosis, regardless the traumatic event?

I ask the same question even about myself, a combat veteran. I signed on the bottom line, I accepted the risks of being sent into hostile places and to do hostile things. PTSD was the end result. Using compassion, all veterans are diagnosed due to the resulting outcome, even though technically we place ourselves in front of the danger.

That kid reading his scary books his entire life, developing PTSD as an adult because his fear processing read one too many, who now mimics PTSD to the letter, should he be included or excluded when compared with the nasty trauma we've been exposed?

Philosophy is a bitch, and Steven Hawking IMHO was wrong, that its dead. It lives very much in mental health doctrine.

 

[Sideways]

Re electronic media: the issue seems to be whether the trauma you're witnessing frequently and over a long time seems to be whether the trauma is 'real' (eg snuff) or artificial (eg comouter games)...although I think there must be a more explicit word to use than 'real'...

 

[lostforgottensoul]

That kid reading his scary books his entire life, developing PTSD as an adult because his fear processing read one too many, who now mimics PTSD to the letter, should he be included or excluded when compared with the nasty trauma we've been exposed?

But to me, this wouldnt cause PTSD, it would cause fear but not PTSD. I think thats why it needs to have wording of like horrific nature as like myself, pictures and videos of murders, pretty horrific ones at that, not like you'd see in a Netflix movie.

Now do i know if only that would i have PTSD? Havent a clue.

My dad is a Vietnam Vet, US airforce. He stayed on base, never had to go in the bush though still saw some horrible things and it changed him (per my older sisters) but he has never exibited PTSD symptoms, not that ive seen anyway...though i wasnt alive to know him pre airforce.

Its a fine line for sure.

 

[lostforgottensoul]

whether the trauma you're witnessing frequently and over a long time seems to be whether the trauma is 'real' (eg snuff) or artificial (eg comouter games)..

Agreed! My "example" was real and the worst of all the electrical stuff so thats why i used it.

 

[Sideways]

Attempt at an inclusive version:
Direct and frequent exposure, over a prolonged period, to live recordings of the death of, or torture or sexual violence against other people, where that exposure is involuntary or for work purposes.

 

[lostforgottensoul]

Attempt at an inclusive version:
Direct and frequent exposure, over a prolonged period, to live recordings of the death of, or torture or sexual violence against other people, where that exposure is involuntary or for work purposes.

I like that, that actually includes almost all of what i was exposed to eletroniclly.

 

[anthony]

A. Direct exposure (via experiencing or witnessing) to actual or immediate threat of: death, catastrophic injury, and/or sexual violence. (Does not apply to social or recreational exposure via electronic media, television, movies, pictures, or text.)

I think maybe this type of thing is the better solution, just need to find the right word for "self-inflicted" in essence. Anyone who's job it is to view such footage, that is not self-inflicted by social choice, relaxation, or such means. So does it really need be noted that way to begin with? Which seems to be the part screwing with the statement the most.

Edit: social or recreational exposure.

 

[Sideways]

I like that, that actually includes almost all of what i was exposed to eletroniclly.

...[/QUOTE]
I was also trying to encompass those brought up in a Jihadist household where there is often frequent exposure of kids to recordings of torture against infidels.

 

[joeylittle]

The problem that I have with this... is that any kid growing up playing violent video games, now meets significant frequency and duration for electronic exposure. Is this something you want within PTSD in the future, compared with rape, torture, childhood abuse, sexual violence, POW's, so forth?

Personally...no.

So I'm going to stand by this:
A. Direct exposure, via experiencing or witnessing, actual or immediate threat of: death, catastrophic injury, or sexual violence.

I think that if one is only exposed to a media aspect, and has never been exposed to any of the above in situ, that it does not constitute direct exposure and should not be included in a PTSD diagnosis.

Regarding people who would have to watch snuff films, child pornography, execution and torture footage, and the like: if it was part of their job, I do think that repeated viewing of footage could cause them to have real problems, but I don't believe it would be that and that alone that would cause them to develop PTSD. They should either be addressed by a different diagnosis, or they will likely have something else in their background that conforms to the criteria.

And if a person - child or adult - is being forced to watch such footage, then the circumstances of being forced would conform to experiencing immediate threat of death, catastrophic injury, or sexual violence.

 

[anthony]

Some possibilities then for holes:

A. Direct exposure (via experiencing or witnessing) to actual or immediate threat of: death, catastrophic injury, or sexual violence. (Does not apply to exposure via electronic media, television, movies, pictures, or text, unless the exposure is of significant frequency and duration.)

A. Direct exposure (via experiencing or witnessing) to actual or immediate threat of: death, catastrophic injury, or sexual violence. (Does not apply to social or recreational exposure via electronic media, television, movies, pictures, or text.)

A. Must meet either A1 or A2:
(1) Direct exposure (via experiencing or witnessing) to actual or immediate threat of: death, catastrophic injury, or sexual violence.
(2) Direct and frequent exposure, over a prolonged period, to live recordings of death, catastrophic injury or sexual violence against people, where that exposure is involuntary or for work purposes.

Amended and/or, I do not understand a purpose for choice where choice is already available.