Lets Create A Ptsd Diagnosis

[EveHarrington]

IMHO if the rest of the diagnostic criteria are fixed and the medical community acknowledges PTSD for what it actually is, the question of what can cause PTSD (i.e. Criterion A) will answer itself. That is, right now Criterion A is the "gateway" criterion to whether or not it is indeed PTSD but IMHO this way of thinking is incorrect. (Everyone thinks this way, everyone with any knowledge of PTSD---a matter of changing deeply entrenched habits.) If the rest of the diagnostic criterion are fixed, corrected, what have you----there will be no need to even question the smaller nuances of criterion A. You'd no longer have people claiming PTSD because they stubbed their toe simply because they don't have the hallmark traits of the disorder. (The current diagnostic description is IMHO woefully inadequate and quite off the mark but I won't get into why just yet.)

I have a lot of opinions on what PTSD is, what it entails, but it's beyond criterion A so that's all I'll say for now.

 

[Sideways]

@FridayJones - like your options & see your point. Version 2 speaks to me the most, but perhaps as:

"Direct exposure, either experienced or (and/or?) witnessed..."

 

[Deleted member 28740]

Is virtual reality exposure and use included in 2), or an off topic? It is used by the military for both training and treating. Now available to the general population.

 

[Sideways]

Or the clumsiness could be cleared up by just moving "to" to in front of the brackets:

"Direct exposure to (by experiencing or witnessing)..."

 

[oasis2003]

I like the criterion so far, just not the media aspect.

(Does not apply to exposure to electronic media, te...

For criterion A is it necessary to add any brackets the first part is really specific to me

 

[Sideways]

@Changeling - using "actual" and "people" in A2 is intended to exclude virtual re-creations of events, whether it be for work or recreational purposes. The logic is (I think) that knowing that what you are watching is happening to real people is actually what throws 'viewing' events 3rd hand into the same class of trauma as the type described in A1...

 

[oasis2003]

Just this: A Direct exposure to actual or immediate threat of death, catastrophic injury or sexual violence.

 

[anthony]

I have a lot of opinions on what PTSD is, what it entails, but it's beyond criterion A so that's all I'll say for now.

I don't think you will get disagreement here, and that aspect is coming. First things first though... criterion A before we start on what I agree is the larger issue, an we have an off-topic side thread for this, so please do share, as I would be interested to read about your thoughts on the issues.

Is virtual reality exposure and use included in 2), or an off topic?

I think you would need a better context here. In what way? If virtual reality was more gaming oriented to help with therapeutic need, then there should be no need because soldiers using such equipment are doing so under therapeutic settings, and not to be traumatised.

If a person otherwise didn't have PTSD, and played endless hours of virtual reality gaming and got PTSD symptoms, then the idea of (2) is to eliminate this type of thing and look elsewhere for diagnosis.

 

[anthony]

I will come back to (1) examples... unless someone else wants to put something together from the suggestions for review and selection -- I have to go out right now.

 

[joeylittle]

Direct exposure (via experiencing or witnessing), actual, or immediate threat of: death, catastrophic injury, or sexual violence.

Direct exposure to actual, or immediate threat of, death, catastrophic injury, or sexual violence. Experiencing or witnessing constitute direct exposure.

(Or some other version moving what constitutes direct exposure to the second half of the clause)

I like the first one still. I'm the staunch advocate for specifying what direct exposure means: without that specificity, direct exposure becomes more theoretical. 'I was going into surgery under anaesthesia and that exposed me directly to immediate threat of death' - without anything else having happened.

I like via rather than by, or from, because it's as literal as you can get for 'by means of' without using 3 words.

It also makes it clear that the exposure is the cause, experiencing it or witnessing it is the means by which the cause must occur.

 

[Sideways]

Direct exposure to (via experiencing or witnessing) actual or immediate threat of death, catastrophic injury, or sexual violence.

Preferring it as a flowing sentence. The 'to' makes it flow.
The comma after "actual" needs to come out, otherwise the word "threat" only applies to the "immediate" condition (so it would need to be actual death, not just an actual threat of death).

Grammer: my nemesis!

 

[lostforgottensoul]

Direct exposure to (via experiencing or witnessing) actual or immediate threat of death, catastrophic injury, or sexual violence.

This I like better!