News Changing Ptsd To Ptsi?

[anthony]

OSI is not PTSD, and it is specific to only the Canadian military as a classification they give their soldiers who endure PTSD symptoms, though didn't actually endure combat directly. Those who endure combat, are diagnosed with PTSD, as are Canadian civilians, being the official global diagnosis.

Operational Stress Injury (OSI) is best described as any persistent psychological difficulty resulting from operational duties performed while serving in the Canadian Forces or as a member of the RCMP. Difficulties may occur during combat duties, after serving in a war zone, in peacekeeping missions, or following other traumatic or serious events not specific to combat.

It is purely an internal Canadian military term, it is not a diagnosis with any legality outside of the Canadian military.

 

[Shellbell]

Thanks PTSD Sufferer and Elph, you have given me lots of food for thought. I think it is always wise to arm yourself with the knowledge of Disability Law and Gov't Legislation.

With regard to changing PTSD to an injury, from a disorder - I understand why people would not want the stigma of a 'disorder' applied to them. At the moment I am really not bothered what it's caused, but that's probably because of the stage I am at - only just commencing therapy. Down the track I can see my opinion may change and that I probably won't want to be stuck with the stigma of a 'mental health disorder'.

 

[anthony]

Once you remove the symptoms and no longer meet the criteria for a period deemed from your treating physician, you then no longer have the diagnosis.

The Australian Government does recognise PTSD... I know, because I have that recognition from them. I think you may simply need to ask around more because PTSD is considered by the Australian Government as the equivalent of losing a limb. That will not change Centerlink on sending you to a psychiatrist vs. psychologist... though disability is present through the Government for PTSD, because I've had the civilian disability component before which is via Centerlink, including the little blue disability card.

I suspect it is more about finding and filing the right forms and asking the right people the right questions versus the tired, over-worked employee at a centerlink counter which are normally not very helpful. We've had to go to a manager level most times just to sort issues out at centerlink, purely because the counter staff had no idea certain things even existed or could be done.

You probably need to look around for advocate type persons who have the training of what you can be entitled to. They're the people in the know. You may also have to sit a medical board for disability before Centerlink will acknowledge you as disabled due to mental illness. I'm pretty sure you will have to... because they will need to rate your disability level, which as you acknowledged, will include your capacity to work, socialise and more.

 

[Shellbell]

Well that made my anxiety rise. Just thinking of hassle with Centrelink makes my anxiety soar. But I have found an advocate for disability agency with a local office. So, if need be I could contact them. Good to be armed with knowledge on dealing with issues.

 

[Elph]

OSI is not PTSD, and it is specific to only the Canadian military as a classification they give their soldiers who endure PTSD symptoms, though didn't actually endure combat directly. Those who endure combat, are diagnosed with PTSD, as are Canadian civilians, being the official global diagnosis.

It is purely an internal Canadian military term, it is not a diagnosis with any legality outside of the Canadian military.

No one said that OSI was a diagnosis. The point is that the Canadian military decided that using the injury model would be beneficial and came up with a compromise of their own rather than take on the APA.

 

[anthony]

If the US military pushed for change to name it an injury, that is when it will occur IMHO... not before. Militaries downgrade things and call them an injury opposed to other terms, because soldiers can accept injuries, not disorders, within the morale and acceptability of their platoons. If PTSD became an issue within the US military, internally, that is likely the only time a name change would occur. The US DOD tend to have a lot of say about PTSD with the APA, and that would be the only reason as I could see a change occurring... not because a couple of physicians want to push for political correctness.

Those physicians would be better aimed sending such letters to the US DOD alone, trying to argue on the grounds of how soldiers viewed it. That would get their attention... because officers don't want stigma in their platoons, as morale goes to shit... and veterans are the largest affected group that impact most changes within PTSD. Political correctness falls on deaf ears, other than to another few PC type persons who couldn't impact a thing. The US military is not very PC... hence falling on deaf ears with their current arguments to cite their stance.

 

[PTSD sufferer]

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 (?).

Here is a useful background link about Operational Stress Injury.

behaviors

Great points Elpha, this is really interesting from both a injury model point of view and a social psychological point of view. Canada is not the only country to have adopted this terminology, Europe is also talking about it and there are a few research articles from other war situations - like Bosnia which are very interesting articles.

The injury model makes absolute sense to me. It really does show that there are groups who recognise environmental conditions and the impact of stress on ones psychology and behavioural responses. Its nice to see environmental stress being recognised on a neuropsychiatric level. This is why I am really interested in life long and prolonged stress.

Anthony is correct in saying that the DSM does not currently recognise the psychological and neurological impact of stress and stressful environments - a serious flaw in the DSM in my opinion! Thanks for sharing this!

It took a lot of hard work of a few dedicated people to move PTSD from a 'military only' illness to being recognise in the wider public domain. It harder to deny that a war zone can be both stressful and traumatic because of what is is and the scale of those affected. Hopefully, the stress and environmental injury model will not take as long, there are certainly enough public call for it and non-military groups (scientists and clinicians as well as the public) are pushing for such changes in the DSM.

 

[anthony]

there are certainly enough public call for it and non-military groups (scientists and clinicians as well as the public) are pushing for such changes in the DSM.

Where? There is one minority organisation trying to push it. Don't forget the Canadian military are not using OSI to replace PTSD... they use PTSD where it fits. They use OSI to depict more Acute Stress Disorder (ASD) / similarities / post-traumatic stress only, from reading the published information upon it. So you can't use that when referring to PTSD, as they aren't using them the same.

Are these European mentions being used as a direct correlation to PTSD?

There are lots of injury models around, all to do with external factors that clearly have no genetic component. There is a difference though between experiencing symptoms that are classified as "normal" to having something that exists without the environmental influence around any longer, or for any duration, yet the symptoms remain... that is when post-traumatic stress (normal symptoms to an environmental factor only) become post-traumatic stress disorder (genetics is combined).

People with an agenda just keep stepping over all the angles. You can't look at something from one side, two sides even, you have to keep adding in every bit of information, good, bad or otherwise, piece it all together then view it subjectively. The more this discussion seems to ensue, the more good, bad and otherwise data comes to light, which doesn't show injury when related to PTSD as being close to a conclusive argument.

There is an argument for injury... ok. So prove it beyond reasonable doubt. They can't, because for PTSD there is more than just environmental factors at play.

If they aimed this at ASD... that I can see, as the discussion is purely a normal symptomatic reaction to an abnormally stressful event (environment). Those symptoms should dissipate over time, with little to no intervention. Faster with intervention. Now... you have those where the symptoms don't dissipate, they don't go away, even with intervention. There is a huge misdiagnosis gap in here as well IMHO, where people with ASD are diagnosed with PTSD because of this one month cross-over. I don't believe one month is accurate for post-traumatic stress symptoms to dissipate from an abnormally traumatic event. 12 months maybe, not one. So little is known about mental health, in that the biggest issue right now is that assigned time frame, not whether PTSD should be changed to PTSI.

Agenda... that is what this organisation chases, nothing more.

 

[Springer80]

I don't want to see the current 'flamming' taint those that are interested in offering opinions on the topic,

Hi,
I agree, I've had this since I was a child. It's affected 2/3rds of my ife and taken 13 years for the medical profession to even get into the ball park of correct diagnoses. The terminology used is incredibly important to us, the ptsd community and we should have a say in it so we can be received with understanding. Personally, I have a deal I could say on this topic but I haven't the energy or inclination to wade into a debate thats become cannibalistic.

 

[Deleted member 1860]

PTSD Sufferer,

I think you're playing both sides of the coin here. You assume (dangerous, dangerous) that a change to PTSI will lessen stigma while at the same time keeping the disorder/illness at the same PERCEIVED level of severity. Am I alone in thinking this is flawed? How can you want society to be all warm and fuzzy toward the disorder/illness but still expect PTSD/I sufferers to be taken just as seriously? I just don't see it happening.

ETA I see no flaming...

 

[anthony]

I see no flaming either, that is purely PTSD Sufferer thinking on my behalf, based on thoughts / expressions in writing that I am not putting their with the perceived intent.

Statements need answers, as statements mixed with an opinion is not an opinion made. Statements need evidence... which is what I am asking for from said statements mixed with said opinions, which still aren't provided. That is baiting an argument IMHO.

If someone compared ASD to more better labelled something like PTSI, I can actually see logic in that, as ASD is purely environmental, being a normal human reaction (psychological injury) to an abnormal stressful event (trauma). Now that has merit, as ASD has no lineage at that point to genetics, i.e. proven susceptibility beyond just the environment / behavioural components. It makes a good argument when reviewing all sides of ASD to branding it PTSI, because ASD really is post-traumatic stress... the labelling is really quite screwed up by calling a temporary month or so of symptoms a disorder.

When you have it for life... well... that changes things. An injury is short. You can be injured, but it is temporary, not longevity. You had an injury... now you have the effects associated to that injury, but you don't have the injury today. This is why disorder is there... being a past event/s has triggered something internally to snap, at no given time or specific event, hence disorder by definition is more arguably correct. There are probably some other definitions you could use, though injury isn't one of them for a longevity factor. If that were the case, it may as well be called post-traumatic stress trauma, as trauma has an infinite span attached to the effect vs. a specific. You can have a lifetime of trauma, but you don't have a lifetime of injury, not by definition.

 

[Queen Boudica]

I don't get that. I have a back injury, it is lifelong, the disks are compressed and they are not going to heal. And you can get brain injuries and they are lifelong. But maybe I don't understand the semantics.