Complex Post Traumatic Stress Disorder: Definition, Assessment, Treatment

[anthony]

No need to apologize... Though I would absolutely question your physician diagnosing you with something that does not exist! I would love to know where their diagnosis came from... Because it wasn't the DSM or ICD.

 

[bblipp]

I have a question. Even if the DSM does not include CPTSD in it's definitions does it make discussion of it "redundant"? My shrink thinks its useful. Do we need to slave to an official definition to make sense of ourselves?

 

[anthony]

I have a question. Even if the DSM does not include CPTSD in it's definitions does it make discussion of it "redundant"? My shrink thinks its useful. Do we need to slave to an official definition to make sense of ourselves?

Complex trauma is not redundant... only the label of CPTSD as a diagnosis. Its not about making sense of one self for reasoning here, it is about trying to provide the truth, the facts vs. speculation, myth and innuendo. There is no point to perpetuate something that is no longer valid. Whilst CPTSD still gets used by some, it also doesn't hurt to change towards the factual response vs. just using it nonetheless. When does one draw the line to use fact vs. assumption? There is no right or wrong on an individual basis, though this forum no longer endorses it, because the forum as an entity, attempts to remain with fact and truth as much as humanly possible.

You could apply the same to the chemical imbalance theory. It was a theory which has sustained the justification for medication for over 30 years, though neuroimaging has enough substance now from the last couple of years to provide definitive evidence that a chemical imbalance does not take place, nor was their a chemical balance in the first place. It was a theory which has been correct because nothing existed to prove it wrong, or deem it obsolete. Now there is... so do we continue to perpetuate that existing belief or rationale, even though it is proven untrue now due to modern science?

Take that exact thinking, then apply it to CPTSD. Do we continue to perpetuate it, even though it has no validity and has now been further rejected for inclusion as a diagnostic criteria?

Or is it more sustainable to work with the facts and truth? That is my aim for this forum... to work with the facts and truth, and try to steer people towards fact and truth vs. industry nonsense that occurs or some person attempting to make a name for themselves. Me... I want fact and truth, as I have been fed enough bullshit from across industry professionals, getting different answers from each, until you go further up the chain to the select experts who use current science and proven conclusions before making a statement.

Its like reading one study and making a statement that its results are factual. That is not correct, as for every study published, there are counter studies that will show the exact opposite. So which one is true? Put enough studies together in order to obtain a more accurate cross-section of the combined positives and negative (meta analyses) and often a different answer is provided again... though even that depends on whether they only include positive OR negative publications OR both.

 

[Brontie]

I think PTSD is what it is and it is complex enough without adding more labels to it. We all know that PTSD is not simply the result of a crappy childhood and that we don't have to be a soldier or a victim of violence to experience PTSD. PTSD is the result of life hitting us with a huge wrecking ball of some description. Whatever the event that caused it, it changes you. And we can learn to live with it, we can learn to be stronger, but most of us will always fear 'It' happening again. And that is a huge part of PTSD.

I'm probably on my own in this one but does the treatment sound like 'conditioning'? I'm afraid a lot of psych treatment sounds like this to me. I understand re-conditioning but some of it sounds like brainwashing.

 

[anthony]

The problem with the CPTSD label, was that it only encompasses PTSD + Dissociative Disorder NOS. The problem with complex trauma is far beyond just those two diagnosis, and DDNOS is not necessarily accurate for all with complex trauma, as not everyone heavily dissociates, instead they have adapted a personality disorder, or psychotic disorder, or severe mood disorder; sometime all or many of the above.

This was the discussion on this exact matter, where then do they draw the line in mixing combinations together to form a new diagnosis? Do they also mix PTSD + DDNOS + BPD and call it, Complex Personality PTSD. What if the person has a different dissociative symptomology? Do they have CPTSD1, CPTSD2, CPTSD3 with all these different variations of diagnostic labels?

This is the problem the experts who construct this stuff have had to decide on. If you open this door, where do you then close it? Its like law, if you set a precedence you then have to accept every other persons substantive claims based on that precedence, because it was accepted once on similar circumstances.

There is a difference in dealing with trauma vs. complex trauma as a majority, but in some instances, you can have people just as bad with and without complex trauma, because they want to remain ill, or aren't ready to listen to someone, trust someone, to push them beyond there own denial.

 

[zeldazonk]

Sorry. But I have to agree that some people do choose to stay ill.

I guess they do sometimes but my point is that, in my opinion, we need to remember that choice is a relative term.
We all have choices but we don't have the same choices. We don't all start at the same 'starting line' with the same equipment. That's all. I just think that can be quite a judgemental statement and I don't think judgement is necessarily warranted. Not calling you judgemental by the way.
Best, Zel.