Complicated case of ptsd

[shimmerz]

I did a good search using these words.

withdrawal from psychiatric drugs ptsd

I don't have the time to read them first, which is why I am posting the keywords I used. With a quick glance at the search results, I do notice that some doctors are making noise about how coming off of these drugs causes crazy reactions which has people feel like they are losing their minds. The health implications can cause great losses (marriage, jobs, homes, independence, sanity etc) which are, of course, core losses.

 

[MamaHopeful]

YES! This is EXACTLY it!
The criterion doesn't say the TRAUMA cannot be from drugs, it says the SYM...

Replying to myself here.
After carefully reading I can see the counter-point and it makes sense.

There is a huge difference between believing you are going to die, and actually being in a situation where you are going to die.

Sorry for any confusion.

 

[EveHarrington]

I am reading this and feeling quite alarmed by your assessment of this criterion.

It states that...

Honestly you’re reaching.

If the trauma is due to these things, the symptoms are due to these things. You cannot separate them.

 

[MamaHopeful]

Honestly you’re reaching.

If the trauma is due to these things, the symptoms are due to these...

I see that now.

 

[TTC18]

I have a question - and not wanting to open a can of worms here, but really not understanding.
What if the trauma was an allergic reaction to a drug? Like you went into shock? Would that qualify? Because it's a chemical reaction inside your body that led to a physical reaction by your body... Like if you were stung by a wasp and went into allergic shock. Would a wasp sting/allergic shock/ER visit qualify? (Wasp venom is a chemical) What if it's not the actual chemical reaction you're traumatized by, but the results? Being in the ER, surrounded by concerned people, knowledge that you're having a reaction to the medication, knowing that people die from medical reactions sometimes, feeling physical reactions to the chemical reaction, etc. (Like you could get PTSD from being in a car accident and going to the ER even if you weren't in danger of losing your life)
I have no personal experience with this- have never been traumatized by a drug reaction or any kind of chemical reaction (including a wasp sting) - but I don't understand how any trauma is ruled out just because it started with taking a medicine (or recreational drug).
Everything we experience is the result of electrical activity and chemical activity in our brains, so what's the difference?
I'm not asking to argue, please don't yell, I really genuiunely don't understand and want to understand.

 

[Neverthesame]

As I understand it, anaphylaxis falls under imminent threat of death.
The difference being, a blocked airway will kill you. A hallucination of a pink elephant sitting on you will not.
While the elephant would be frightening at the time, later when you come down and realise it wasn't real, along with it comes the reassertation that a figment of drug addled imagination wasn't actually able to hurt you, no matter how frightening.

The word trauma, when applied to an event for clinical diagnosis, is not the same as "scary". It has a specific definition in a clinical setting to describe a specific bodily reaction to a stimulus. It's not a measurement on a scale of how bad.

For example: A fractured arm, means the bone is no longer in one piece.
A contusion means the bone is bruised.
Depending on the specific circumstances behind the injury, it's absolutely possible for a bruised bone to hurt quite a lot more than a broken one does.
The treatment for a bone fracture is different than for a contusion. Having specific labels for identifying the difference between the two injuries, makes sure everyone is the same page in regards to treatment protocols. It doesn't imply the patient with the bruise is being a whiny baby.
It means don't put a cast on it, as it won't help as much as ice and anti-inflammatory drugs will.

Was that what you were asking @tryingtocope18?

 

[TTC18]

Not exactly... but thank you for trying to help me! I don't know if experiencing extreme fear due to a medical side effect is the same as having a hallucination of pink elephants. And (Devil's advocate) a hallucination of pink elephants could kill you.. you could have a heart attack due to fright, or jump out of a window or into the path of a train to get away from them, etc. I don't want to be argumentative - I just don't see the difference between fear induced by a medication (outside chemical) and fear induced by adrenaline, etc (inside chemical) - if no one knows exactly why some people develop PTSD and some don't, given the same trauma, how can we say that this or that can't cause PTSD?
I am certain that it doesn't really matter as long as the OP gets treatment that helps long-term recovery, I just don't understand. Probably don't really need to, lol.

 

[Neverthesame]

And (Devil's advocate) a hallucination of pink elephants could kill you.. you could have a heart attack due to fright, or jump out of a window or into the path of a train to get away from them, etc.

No. It couldn't.
A fright induced heart attack is a medical trauma. It doesn't matter what set it off. Pink elephant from an acid trip or a surprise party while sober. The life threatening event is the heart attack, not the fear.
Same with the other examples you mentioned.
The real danger is the fall, or the train.
Falls from height cause real bodily harm. A train crash is a motor vehicle collision. If it's real, it's real. A delusion or hallucination is not real. Without those real threats to ones immediate survival, it's all just a harmless hallucination or delusion.
Also the drug induced preoccupation with possible danger which is frequently seen in drug induced paranoia is not a cause of ptsd.
Even if I were to have an irrational fear of an airplane falling on me when walking down the road, this would not be the same as actually having an airplane fall on me while out for a stroll. I can't get PTSD because it's theoretically possible I could inadvertently be standing where an airplane could happen to drop into one day.

Without the real event, it's not trauma in the clinical sense used to diagnose PTSD.

if no one knows exactly why some people develop PTSD and some don't, given the same trauma, how can we say that this or that can't cause PTSD?

This is really hard to articulate so bear with me.
When looking at the current criteria for diagnosis which is what is used right now, it's not the cause.
In twenty years? Who knows? Maybe it will. But right now no, it's not.
As the disorder is currently defined, a frightening but non life threatening experience from a drug will not result in a diagnosis of PTSD.

 

[TTC18]

The life threatening event is the heart attack, not the fear.
Same with the other examples you mentioned.
The real danger is the fall, or the train.

Yes, that's what I meant- if you have the fear from the medication, which causes you to have a physiological reaction - whether it's a heart attack or a panic attack, which puts you into a medical-care situation, surrounded by doctors, etc, I can see how the resulting medical care itself could be traumatic. I'm imagining being freaked out - then surrounded by doctors/medical personnel all working to try and get me stabilized, creating a fear-feedback (Medical personnel are worried about me, I must be REALLY going to die!) and traumatized by the situation itself - which resulted from the medication initially. Does that make any sense at all? I will understand if it doesn't - I may just be over-empathizing.

 

[joeylittle]

Does that make any sense at all? I will understand if it doesn't - I may just be over-empathizing.

You're just skipping past the actual medical event - so, you're describing high-level anxiety/panic (fear), heart-attack (medical event), doctors doing medical intervention (aftermath).

In this hypothetical example, it's the heart attack itself that is the trauma. The after-care may or may not be relevant.