Lets Create A Ptsd Diagnosis

[anthony]

I think your first version (v3 above) adequately includes all required terms, cutting all the noise.

 

[lostforgottensoul]

Direct exposure to either experiencing or witnessing death, catastrophic injury, or sexual violence.

Love it! You're awesome Simply!

I'm not super concerned about the risk of PTSD being diagnosed post-mortem in any case.

Ahahaha! If they find a way to do that, that would be an advance in science! :hungover: :hilarious:

 

[oasis2003]

I think v 3 is the most precise and specific but also covers everything without the brackets, I don't think they are necessary

 

[Deleted member 28740]

Have to ask. Domestic violence could/would be covered under experiencing, and for witnessing? Threat of death or catastrophic inclusive enough? Different from Sexual Violence. Ongoing and single event subjected to? Child's witnessing perception in terms of PTSD, and child involvement during domestic violence, i.e. intervening, threatened.

Any studies/data on domestic violence PTSD, experiencing and witnessing?

 

[Friday]

@Changeling... & combat, natural disasters, MVAs, a whole lot of different traumas can involve both witnessing and being a party to. Having both doesn't negate where 1 or more is needed. If you need this or that? And have both? Yep.

Logic (formal logic)... Used in med diagnosis
And (& / ampersand / amp) is exclusionary, one needs 2:2 pieces. A & B = C
Or is inclusive, one only needs 1:2, but 2:2 works just fine. A = C, B = C : A or B = C

C = Possibility of PTSD
B = Witness
A = Experience

Experience or Witness = Possibility of PTSD

 

[Ronin]

So you think PTSD should be open to those who have to watch animals be slaughtered by media? Animals are not part of A1, but you want to make them open for inclusion to A2?

Why would animals be open to be a cause of PTSD period? You would be putting animal acts against rape, torture, war, child abuse, so forth. There are other diagnoses other than PTSD... why should animals suddenly part of PTSD?

No, honestly my thought was more along the lines of someone knowing their victim loves pets in general, making them watch their suffering as a method of torture where the victim wouldn't care the same way for people.

Have known several in my life where frankly people, they wouldn't give a damn about, pets? Whole another world to get to them.

So my thought went that way.

(To clarify, I don't mean to derail subsequent discussion.)

 

[Deleted member 28740]

a whole lot of different traumas can involve both witnessing and being a party to

Why then is Sexual Violence specified, if all else is inclusive or not?

 

[joeylittle]

Why then is Sexual Violence specified

Because it does not always connect to death or catastrophic injury. You can be one step away from being raped (immediate fear of), but not in any danger of death or catastrophic injury.

 

[lostforgottensoul]

A. An event in which one of the following were present:
(1) Directly experiencing or witnessing actual or immediate threat of death, catastrophic injury, or sexual violence.
(2) Direct and frequent exposure, over a prolonged period, to recordings of actual death, catastrophic injury or sexual violence against people, where that exposure is non voluntary or for work purposes.

This is tight, I like this, a lot!

 

[Deleted member 28740]

Because it does not always connect to death or catastrophic injury

As though before and while you are being raped you know that it could result in death or catastrophic injury?

You can be one step away from being raped (immediate fear of), but not in any danger of death or catastrophic injury.

This makes no sense to me.

 

[joeylittle]

@Changeling - I'm explaining why sexual violence needs to be listed as its own criteria, is all.

As though before and while you are being raped you know that it could result in death or catastrophic injury?

No, the opposite. Because sexual violence does NOT necessarily connect to those things, it needs to be listed, so it can count as a crit A event.

(I thought you were asking earlier why it was singled out, and I was attempting to explain)

 

[joeylittle]

https://www.littler.com/files/press/pdf/Adler-DSM-5-Posttraumatic-Stress-Disorder-July-2014.pdf
This article is pretty fantastic, and provides a different contextual lens, especially in regards to Criterion A. I'm working my way through it; will pull the most useful quotes in a few minutes

Edit to add: actually, it's just a great read. Ultimately, when these psych definitions have to make it into a court of law, it's really up to the expert testimony - there's just no getting around the fact that how a psychiatrist interprets the diagnostic criteria has enormous weight.

@dnp - I think you'd like this article, per our discussion on the other thread.