Lets Create A Ptsd Diagnosis

[joeylittle]

Direct and frequent exposure, over a prolonged period, to live recordings of death, catastrophic injury or sexual violence against people, where that exposure is involuntary or for work purposes.

that's pretty tight. And I think if it's going to be there, it does need it's own 'line'.

 

[anthony]

Yup, I think @Ragdoll Circus pulled some serious legal wording skills on that one. To ponder for holes.

 

[Sideways]

I'm liking them seperate (to be difficult). A1 is 'direct and actual' exposure. A2 is 'direct, frequent and prolonged' (but not 'actual'). Might be a mess clarifying the distinction in a single statement.

 

[anthony]

Compared to the current criterion A, that is not difficult.

 

[anthony]

Ok, so using a little DSM IV criterion A introduction, modified... needs a little better word smithing that intro ??????

A. An event in which one of the following were present:
(1) Direct exposure (via experiencing or witnessing) to actual or immediate threat of: death, catastrophic injury, or sexual violence.
(2) Direct and frequent exposure, over a prolonged period, to live recordings of death, catastrophic injury or sexual violence against people, where that exposure is involuntary or for work purposes.

Holes??????

 

[Ronin]

To (2), does the part of 'against people' have to be there?

For many pets are more attachment people than humans, and it's significant for their trauma? Wouldn't leaving that part out and simply stop at 'or sexual violence', dot, be closer? Since the A-1 criterion already doesn't add 'against people' as a necessity.

 

[Fadeaway]

Direct exposure (via experiencing or witnessing) to actual or immediate threat of

My question is this. What about perceived threats of violence or death Someone who is in a situation where they truly believe they are faced with death, catastrophic injury, or sexual violence, but the threat doesn't exist or turns out not to have existed.
Would that fall under actual or immediate threat of?

 

[joeylittle]

What about perceived threats of violence or death...Would that fall under actual or immediate threat of?

The clauses are meant to imply:

• actual death or immediate threat of death
• actual catastrophic injury or immediate threat of catastrophic injury
• actual sexual violence or immediate threat of sexual violence.

The question you are asking is am important one. I think, in most cases, it falls under immediate threat. Immediate threat doesn't mean that a person is threatening you - it means that the next action has the potential to result in (death, injury, sexual violence).

Bungee-jumping is a good example. While it is a risky sport, and people have died doing it, the expectation is not that you will die. If you have a perception that you will die, that perception is most likely not going to constitute an immediate threat - because it's already been determined that the actual action (bungee jumping) is not a threat. So, no matter how scared you are, you can't qualify for criterion A because of bungee-jumping.

Does that help?

 

[Sideways]

A(1) - I think maybe "actual and immediate"..?

 

[Friday]

Holes??????

where that exposure is involuntary or for work purposes.

My addiction made me do it...
I wasn't in control of my actions...
I was drunk, and therefore...
I had the flu, and couldn't get up off the couch to change the station...
My parents never taught me...
Peer Pressure...
Etc.

Involuntary opens the door for every other possible "It wasn't my fault I chose to watch XYZ, or got off on watching XYZ, and now I regret it."

I'm a fan of duress over involuntary. Duress at least implies outside force. Involuntary just seems to open the door to every myriad situation, disorder, substance, social situation, and not my fault, my (blah blah blah) MADE me play video games for 15 hours straight. Also, not a lawyer.

Where's my damn thesaurus?

 

[Sideways]

@FridayJones - I think the requirement that it be "frequent and prolonged" cuts out most of those options. And if a person has some kind of issue going on that they have access to that stuff and watch it frequently and over a prolonged period because, eg "the devil made me do it...", then PTSD is going to be the last of their problems. Saying "I was wasted for 6 months and so I spent the whole time watching snuff...involuntarily" seems a bit of a long bow to draw??

Re "duress" - can't speak to the situation in the US, but in the UK and Australia, there's too much common law specifying what is and isn't 'duress'. I think that specific word invites too many issues.

With any definition, you are going to have to assume at least a small degree of common sense in its interpretation I think...

 

[joeylittle]

Where's my damn thesaurus?

Non-voluntary.

Involuntary means 'by accident' or 'unintended'
Voluntary means 'at will'
Non voluntary means 'against will'

These are very common terms in euthanasia, also philosophy. So they may meet the needs of both the medical and the esoteric. But non-voluntary is definitely more accurate to what we are trying to say.