News Changing Ptsd To Ptsi?

[Nicolette]

Because IMO someone got banned because they disagreed with an admin and had to defend against getting flamed, he had lost his objectivity.

My understanding is the banning was due to inappropriate behavior including behind the scenes not Anthony disagreeing with them. If Anthony was like that everyone would have left the forum as he would be inadvertently shoving his stance down everyone's throat by doing such.

I really don't have the time or inclination nor need to defend Anthony as he is a big boy. I do support his decision and I would suggest you re-read the thread Elph and then the PC's you were involved in and think again.

I'm officially removing myself from this discussion/debate

Thing is there is nothing wrong with a healthy discussion and debate and I would hope people would feel they could share their opinion.

flame war, whatever it is.

This is when Anthony will shut someone done - if they are out to cause trouble and not enter into a healthy debate. Even the avatar change was a sign of defiance as are the status updates on their profile page.

Also just to clarify the member is not banned from the forum, just a temporary ban from this particular thread. [DLMURL]https://www.ptsdforum.org/c/threads/thread-ban-implemented.26558/[/DLMURL]

Cherryblossom is correct - the member can participate in other threads, just not this one.

 

[piratelady]

That is exactly one of the issues with this though, in that you have varying aspects to an injury versus a disorder. A disorder either is, or isn't. An injury is a mixed basket. As you outlined, you can reinjure yourself due to environmental factors, ie. twisting your body (behaviour).

PTSD can manifest for no reason what so ever, no environmental factor, no behaviour, just because it wants to.

Can you clarify this? Do you mean once someone has PTSD, the affects of it (i.e. anxiety, hyper-vigilance) can become worse again for no reason? That is what makes it a disorder? Sorry, I got confused.

 

[anthony]

Can you clarify this? Do you mean once someone has PTSD, the affects of it (i.e. anxiety, hyper-vigilance) can become worse again for no reason? That is what makes it a disorder? Sorry, I got confused.

Ok... go back to twisting your neck the wrong way and re-injuring a back injury. You had an injury, being a back injury. You know that if you twist your neck you could re-injure you back! So that is more an action, whether deliberate or not, cause and effect. Twist neck, re-injure back. You aren't injuring for the first time, that already occurred. You're now re-injuring it due to a new action.

PTSD requires zero environmental action to heighten symptoms. You can go to bed and have a nightmare, wakeup and your symptoms are heightened, causing you all sorts of issues in the day. A nightmare is purely psychological, not environmental, hence you aren't re-injuring yourself with a nightmare, it just is a psychological aspect of being human.... yet causes these symptoms to manifest upon waking. Where is the injury in that? Or re-injury?

Disorder delves further than an injury. You can injure yourself physically or psychologically, no argument there. Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) is an environmental act that causes psychological injury. So if you go to sleep and have no nightmare, yet wakeup in a cold sweat, panicked, then depressed, where is the injury? Where does injury stop and self-manifestation take over? That is leading into a disorder. It wasn't there prior... sure, genetics are present in all mental illness to some degree or another, as we are all unique and different, however; where is the line drawn between interpretative definition!

Where is the injury if you wakeup good, get your day started, then the depression kicks in for absolutely no reason? Depression manifests itself without requiring any environmental factor, hence depression is a disorder, just like anxiety, just like PTSD, as anxiety and depression are the two largest components of PTSD.

For PTSD to be only an injury, without any doubt, then anxiety needs to be a proven injury, along with depression... again, word terminology that has limitations.

I completely understand injury, though it seems the argument for injury tosses disorder out the door in ignorance, hoping someone will just ignore it and go for an emotional politically correct alternative, without understanding the repercussions associated to the primary components that comprise PTSD to begin with.

Militaries would absolutely love PTSD to be called PTSI, again for nothing other than stigma. I did a lot of research on this and that is what generals and key military figures globally continue to cite... the stigma reduction within their military by calling it an injury. Trust me, as a veteran, injury would go over a lot better in the military than disorder for moral and troop cohesion. Though then is PTSD just about the military? What about those in the military who deploy, never get shot at or see action, yet develop PTSD? What is their injury? You would then have to state, which has repercussions, that being in a hostile location by itself is enough to give PTSD. It is in fact enough, though the difference for military is because the threat is against them wearing a uniform and weapon versus a civilian who isn't. The threat assessment isn't the same, even though civilians get killed, they aren't a constant target because of their clothing or location inside a perimeter.

An interesting debate the above would make by itself... do you blanket label entire countries / cities civilians with PTSD because they existed within a hostile environment? I already know the data on that one too... which is it doesn't happen that way because to them that is normal. PTSD occurs when suddenly they know about a different world, ie. non-combat societies. The world is full of refugees who endure this issue already, being once clear of a combat zone and safe, suddenly they display PTSD symptoms and/or get PTSD because they now know difference.

When do we stop manipulating definitions and expanding them to suit a politically correct requirement?

 

[Queen Boudica]

Is it that they 'know' the difference? That implies to me that there is some level of concious decision there. Or, when you are a refugee in a combat zone or, say, a child living in an abusive family, you are just focussed on survival, and your brain is in constant survival mode, and that is normal for it and your behaviour is normal in that combat/abusive environment You are living in the nightmare.

Then you come out of that environment and you are no longer in danger but your brain is so 'in tune' to the combat environment you automatically react to any slight danger like it is stll combat, your brain still works in the way it was used to work in but that is inappropriate in a non combat/non abusive environment and it is almost like it wants to go back to that environment that it was used to. And the nightmares are a way of your brain going back there, to what is is used to.

Is it knowing that difference, or just being moved to a safe environment where you don't have to behave like you are in constant danger?

 

[anthony]

I think it is probably coming to terms with being safe, like you cite... though once again, not all react to this. Some come out and remain defensive, not hostile, some come out and become hostile (the aggressor) and some come out and don't change, they simply embrace feeling safe and see no symptomatic issues.

I think that is something the experts are still struggling to really identify, and that comes back to trying to identify humanity I guess, being individual genetics... which is one huge theoretical debate in itself. This is why PTSD is classified as a genetic + environmental disorder, because both aspects are encompassed and neither one exists alone, because if it did then all would get PTSD if exposed to an environmental stressor alone, or all with a specific genome would get PTSD and all others wouldn't.

Whilst I see a politically correct angle in the argument, and I also see a morale aspect from militaries, the mental health component must also be factored, being the psychiatric / biological aspect.

People have mentioned about PTSD changing names over the years, so what makes it so difficult to comprehend now? Well, the difference in those prior changes was based on complete ignorance for one, and was only based on it being a military illness, not a mental health issue.

When you read through the [DLMURL="https://www.ptsdforum.org/c/wiki/history-of-posttraumatic-stress-disorder/"]history of PTSD[/DLMURL] you see specific naming conventions based on that period / the issue at hand, ie. hysteria when there was no other understanding of a name, basically the person just went hysterical to them for no apparent reason, railway spine when people were being slaved to build railways, and suddenly they just couldn't work anymore and become hysterical, then combat specific, shell shock, and a few others... then mental health levelled out a bit and broadened its scope with advancement, to PTSD based on the underlying fundamentals of it, being anxiety and depression. Now we have dissociation significantly added. Is dissociation an injury or a disorder when it affects your ability to perform daily functions? It is genetically a component of the human brain to dissociate, without any external environmental cue. Do we discard that when an environmental cue triggers it? An interesting debate as well IMHO.

I think this touches on some of the issue with this entire argument... that the experts in PTSD still don't know what PTSD exactly is, yet people are trying to change things based on being politically correct versus what is accurate based on what is known! Where is a line drawn in health today? When do we manipulate a definition to suit a cause and when do we not? To my understanding, if there are two definitions then the better one take precedence. Looking at both, disorder at present takes that precedence based on what is known about PTSD versus injury.

Looking at the Websters dictionary, it has an even more precise definition of disorder: to disturb the regular or normal functions of.

Isn't that exactly what trauma does to our brain? It disturbs the normal functioning? PTSD symptoms can be healed, PTSD can be no longer met when you heal and regain normal functioning of your mental processing. PTSD is still there, whether a susceptibility or permanently present in a minority, who never regain normal functioning of their brain and endure symptoms forever.

Then we have injury: an act that damages or hurts, ie. wrong; violation of another's rights for which the law allows an action to recover damages; hurt, damage, or loss sustained.

Ok... we can be hurt, damaged or sustain loss from a traumatic event. They are quite singular in nature though, not a constant in terms of words. The traumatic event damages or hurts, again, only focused on the event itself. What about the next week, month, year, after the singular event when the person is still enduring symptoms?

What suits better from both words? A focus on the event itself, which injury does, or the event + the effect, which disorder does!

 

[anthony]

Because IMO someone got banned because they disagreed with an admin and had to defend against getting flamed, he had lost his objectivity. That is why.

If I wrap a statement within my own opinion, people question it and ask me to provide evidence to support the statement. Happens all the time and it isn't unreasonable. I ask the member the same thing, all I get back is nonsense argumentative crap about flaming. This is not the first time this member has been removed from this site for causing issues, and unrelated to staff, just with other members.

Be careful what you involve yourself within when you have no idea what you're talking about, especially as a new member who has posted next to nothing, nor has any idea about other members history here. Some big half arsed assumptions you're making.

People don't get banned for arguing with an admin... people get banned for being morons on some disruptive trip. The avatar, comments, profile comments, PC's, etc... that is being disruptive outside of the thread, which means the person has an issue / agenda because they don't communicate in the thread, they go on a rampage. That is why shit happens to members, ie. filtered, thread banned or banned... not for challenging an admin or staff.

 

[Philippa]

Words are pretty powerful though. Replacing "disorder" with "injury" might actually have the effect of lowering the stigma, as it sounds less...scary. It gives more of a sense of the need for sympathy rather than judgement. When I see a report of someone having sustained an injury, it makes me emotive and I sympathize with the person, not scared.

But since people are so different there is no guarentee that everyone would view it emotively. Anything to do with the brain is still a very scary thing for most people. A broken leg is just nothing and normal...but an injury to the brain, the part of us that we still are learning so much about and still holds so much mystery...and CAN'T BE SEEN...that is harder for most people to get their head around.

I'm not sure whether it would actually work or not...but it sounds much softer, and therefore might be perceived in a less threatening way by non-sufferers? Hard to tell though...

 

[Philippa]

I read an article that stated that in the USA, PTSD is now being re-classified as a psychiatric illness, like Bi-polar and schizophrenia, so that it isn't classed in the same category as depression (which is emotion based), as PTSD causes biochemical changes in the brain.

So, wouldn't changing it from a Disorder to an Injury appear the lesson the severity of PTSD, making it harder to get affordable counseling, disability payments for those so affected they can't work etc?

This might be the after effect, yeah. People might start treating it as though it were nothing and not taking us seriously. It could go either way really.

 

[Shellbell]

I think this touches on some of the issue with this entire argument... that the experts in PTSD still don't know what PTSD exactly is, yet people are trying to change things based on being politically correct versus what is accurate based on what is known! Where is a line drawn in health today?

Anthony, I really don't know anything about who is trying to change PTSD to PTSI. Could you let me know who this group is as I would like to read up on this some more, thank you.

 

[anthony]

First post Shell... contains a link to the proposal.

 

[Shellbell]

Oops, sorry, was being lazy :oops:

But thanks!

 

[anonymous]

I think you should err on the side of caution to be perfectly honest, especially with your little running diatribe PC between yourself and PTSD Sufferer. Another aspect never hidden, I have full access to read everything and I make no secrets about my distaste in collusion. Act independently, not an issue... collude, that will piss me off and people get banned from the administrator, not because you debated with me or disagree with me, I don't find that an issue... but because you colluded with others to cite points not otherwise your own... which falls under being spiteful and petty, none of which I'm doing in this. I am independent and always looking to expand my knowledge on PTSD. I don't though simply read something and take it for what it is, I want evidence to substantiate any statements of fact. This is what is currently missing from the PTSI angle.

I haven't been on in a while, but this thread got me rather interested, and I got more and more amused as I read, however the above paragraph had me rolling around on the bed laughing my ass off.

Just because you can't convince someone doesn't mean you do a dirty behind their back by having a 'running diatribe' with someone else........ESPECIALLY if that person is the administrator and can read what you've been writing!!!!!:tdown::facepalm:

I'm really sorry, but the irony of that situation has me LOLing right now.:roflmao: