Lets Create A Ptsd Diagnosis

[joeylittle]

A. Direct exposure to actual or immediate threat of death, catastrophic injury, or sexual violence. (Does not apply to exposure to electronic media, television, movies, or pictures, unless the exposure is work related for a period of longevity.)

It says the same thing, adding direct to the beginning. Whether it happened to you, or you witnessed it, the exposure was direct, not third hand. What holes exist in that?

Actually, I think 'direct exposure to actual or immediate threat of' shifts it to be more oblique; now, direct exposure can mean more things than just experiencing or witnessing. The one that jumps to mind is in fiction: you could say that you were directly exposed to threat of death because your character in an RPG was threatened with death. By breaking it out into the specifics - experiencing or witnessing - it does introduce hard limits.

For a period of longevity probably needs to address frequency and duration more clearly: 'unless the exposure is work-related, and of significant frequency and duration'. Could do:

A. Direct exposure (via experiencing or witnessing) actual or immediate threat of: death, catastrophic injury, and/or sexual violence. (Does not apply to exposure via electronic media, television, movies, pictures, or text unless the exposure is both work-related, and of significant frequency and duration.)

'Significant' is being left open for interpretation, but no-one would mistake significant for one week, or two viewings.

 

[Friday]

If you were a child and the only trauma you endured was an adult forcing you to watch real-life traumatic content, then you would not be covered due to the current wording that electronic media is not sufficient unless work related.

How rare would that be, though? My ex did that to my kid... Both real & fictional...But it was also within the context of a whole lot of other abuse. If a person is forcing a child to watch snuff films, violent porn, etc... is it at all likely that it's in an otherwise healthy environment? Maybe. In either case, though, it seems like it's less the media, and more the weapon of choice or of the moment used by the parent to control/intimidate/threaten... Which kicks it up into direct exposure, yes?

Sorry. Lots of questions from this quadrant.

 

[lostforgottensoul]

A. Direct exposure to actual or immediate threat of death, catastrophic injury, or sexual violence. (Does not apply to exposure to electronic media, television, movies, or pictures, unless the exposure is work related for a period of longevity.)

What holes exist in that?

I dont see any after reading it 20 times, unless im missing something.

I do like the compiling of it all, easier to understand as I didnt understand it as it was orginally written.

 

[lostforgottensoul]

How rare would that be, though?

Not rare as you think, but even rare, if it happened the person should be able to have a diagnosis.

I think eletronic media should be included to a point due to my own past, taking out everything else, it would have still be traumtic enough to have issues.

 

[Deleted member 28740]

it seems like it's less the media, and more the weapon of choice or of the moment used by the parent to control/intimidate/threaten... Which kicks it up into direct exposure, yes?

Yes, intent. Makes all the difference in the world between good sex and rape.

Watching and doing violence (drone techs).

 

[Sideways]

"Does not apply where the exposure is via artifical media such as...." allows for the definition to encompass new forms of media as they arise (& computer gaming advances).

 

[lostforgottensoul]

(Does not apply to exposure via electronic media, television, movies, pictures, or text unless the exposure is both work-related, and of significant frequency and duration.)

I dont know about "unless work related" as mine wasnt work related but was enough to cause trauma all by itself. Examples of you want but i think that if a child is forced to view horrific images, videos etc for yrs that by itself could traumtize them to having PTSD in my opinion.

 

[anthony]

A. Direct exposure (via experiencing or witnessing) actual or immediate threat of: death, catastrophic injury, and/or sexual violence. (Does not apply to exposure via electronic media, television, movies, pictures, or text unless the exposure is both work-related, and of significant frequency and duration.)

Refinement is the aim, until we can no longer poke holes in it... shit, I guess if we get something that is 99% solid, that is better than what we still have now.

Not sure why we need the and/or, because every trauma is typically viewed uniquely, and you only need one to meet it, not a combination.

How rare would that be, though?

Don't know -- but then does some door need be open to rare events not otherwise covered?

 

[anthony]

(Does not apply to exposure via electronic media, television, movies, pictures, or text unless the exposure is both work-related, and of significant frequency and duration.)

So in essence, we have a gaping hole in this, because a child forced exposure to such torment, yet not otherwise abused physically, sexually or such, is then left open.

I think before anyone adds childhood emotional abuse, emotional abuse is not statistically significant for PTSD, but more a personality disorder.

 

[anthony]

what the stats are for PTSD from purely long term 3rd person exposure through media, at all?

One on children watching tv: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2539494/pdf/bmj00426-0043.pdf
If you have access: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11896-010-9066-7
There are a lot of studies referenced in such studies and journal pieces as: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...nticated=false&deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=

 

[lostforgottensoul]

So in essence, we have a gaping hole in this, because a child forced exposure to such torment, yet not otherwise abused physically, sexually or such, is then left open.

I say just take "unless work related" out and leave in the significant frequency and duration...but then who's to say what "significant" is or how "horrible" the media is but i do see a hole indeed.

 

[Friday]

if it happened the person should be able to have a diagnosis.

Don't know -- but then does some door need be open to rare events not otherwise covered?

Fair.

Streamlining shouldn't disinclude legitimate cause.

taking out everything else, it would have still be traumtic enough to have issues.

This is where I keep getting stuck, thrashing things out in my own mind. LOTS of things are traumatic enough, or disturbing enough, to create issues. A wide variety of them. But not traumatic enough for PTSD.

***

Okay, so Media (still frame, video, audial) is in if for Adults if in the context of long duration employment & children if in the context of abuse? Even if it's the sole abuse, it's still abuse.

ETA
& my apologies for muddying waters.