Mindhacks Blog on PTSD

map9 · #1 24-03-2007, 06:56 AM

http://www.mindhacks.com/blog/2007/03/doubt_cast_on_defini.html

The website for MINDHACKS has posted a blog regarding the New Scientist article (links are at the bottom of the blog) which reported a new PTSD study on the parameters needing to be changed to distinguish what type of criteria should be applied and basically describe the outline for the methodology required to diagnose a patient. I'm not a member of that website and that is the only way one can post a comment ... but I certainly wanted to.

Love, map9

Quote:

New Scientist is reporting on a new study that questions the definition of post-traumatic stress disorder, based on the fact that a group of severely depressed patients seem to experience PTSD symptoms despite never having suffered a significant trauma.

PTSD is one of the only psychiatric disorders that includes a specific cause in its definition: a traumatic experience that involved likely death or injury to self or others, which was strong enough to cause fear, helplessness or horror.

If this experience results in intrusive memories of the event, persistent arousal and avoidance or dissociation, a person can be diagnosed with PTSD.

This new study, led by psychiatrist Prof Alexander Bodkin, found that almost 80% of a group of severely depressed patients experienced enough symptoms to be diagnosed with PTSD, despite never having been in a traumatic incident.

This suggests that the mental disorder thought to be specific to PTSD may, in fact, not be specific to trauma.

This is not the first time that the validity of PTSD has been questioned. Indeed, it has been a controversial diagnosis since it was first introduced.

As described by some excellent histories of military psychiatry, the acceptance of PTSD as a psychiatric diagnosis was in no small part due to pressure from Vietnam war veterans' groups who wanted the military and state to provide treatment for the effects of traumatic combat stress.

Although PTSD is often described as the modern diagnosis of what used to be called 'shell shock', records from Word War I show 'shell shock' to be quite different in many respects, more closely resembling conversion disorder - a condition where emotional trauma can be expressed as physical symptoms such as paralysis and convulsions.

Before 'shell shock', combat stress was often diagnosed as 'soldiers heart'. It's interesting to note how the concept of combat stress has become more psychological and less physical as time has progressed.

However, most diagnoses of combat stress, in whatever form they have taken, have usually been strongly opposed by the military - who see it as taking soldiers away from the front line, and the government - who are reluctant to compensate soldiers for the inevitable consequences of life-threatening missions.

Many clinicians will, perhaps, not be concerned on a day-to-day basis if the symptoms of PTSD are found not to be specific to the disorder, as they can still treat the symptoms, regardless of how they are classified.

Nevertheless, the implications for research and health care provision (which often relies on confirming a specific diagnosis) could be more profound, particularly if the definition is changed or rejected as a result.

However, this is not likely to happen in the near future, although no one really knows what modifications to the definition of many mental disorders are due in the next edition of the DSM diagnostic manual.

maus · #2 25-03-2007, 03:03 AM

"Many clinicians will, perhaps, not be concerned on a day-to-day basis if the symptoms of PTSD are found not to be specific to the disorder, as they can still treat the symptoms, regardless of how they are classified."

oh can they? That's good news :)