![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 6 of 6. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by capricorn on March 22, 2007, at 10:35:33
http://www.mindhacks.com/blog/2007/03/doubt_cast_on_defini.html
Posted by Racer on March 22, 2007, at 11:12:41
In reply to Doubt cast on definition of PTSD, posted by capricorn on March 22, 2007, at 10:35:33
I wonder if that's because the definition requires the trauma to be physical? I have a lot of symptoms consistent with PTSD, strong enough that my pdoc has written that they're present -- but they were from an experience which did not include direct physical trauma. It was certainly emotionally traumatic, but since no one came after me with weapons, it doesn't count as PTSD.
My guess is that it's that strict definition that's the problem. I'd bet many people have experienced significant psychological trauma which has resulted in PTSD symptoms, and I'd bet this study ruled them out as meetng the criteria for the disorder.
Of course, I haven't read the study, and my latest issue of New Scientist only arrived last night, so maybe I'm just spouting verbiage...
Thanks for posting that link.
Posted by capricorn on March 22, 2007, at 12:32:13
In reply to Re: Doubt cast on definition of PTSD, posted by Racer on March 22, 2007, at 11:12:41
I also wonder whether 'PTSD' should best be defined
via a continuum rather than by categorical means.
Posted by Racer on March 22, 2007, at 12:39:06
In reply to Re: Doubt cast on definition of PTSD, posted by capricorn on March 22, 2007, at 12:32:13
> I also wonder whether 'PTSD' should best be defined
> via a continuum rather than by categorical means.That's an interesting idea. I think it depends on what you're trying todo with the definition -- if you're using the criteria for research, where you need some pretty clear boundaries, it makes sense to have some cut and dried lines. If you're treating human beings, of course, it probably should be seen as a continuum, since nearly everything in humans is a continuum.
Statistics, man. Gotta love 'em, huh? There was a class, years back, at the University of Washington, called "How to Lie with Statistics." Very popular class...
Posted by capricorn on March 22, 2007, at 13:27:20
In reply to Re: Doubt cast on definition of PTSD » capricorn, posted by Racer on March 22, 2007, at 12:39:06
> > I also wonder whether 'PTSD' should best be defined
> > via a continuum rather than by categorical means.
>
> That's an interesting idea. I think it depends on what you're trying todo with the definition -- if you're using the criteria for research, where you need some pretty clear boundaries, it makes sense to have some cut and dried lines. If you're treating human beings, of course, it probably should be seen as a continuum, since nearly everything in humans is a continuum.Just so long as categorically based research isn't allowed to screw up the continuum/dimensionally based reality vis a vis real life experiences of mental illness.
Posted by Phillipa on March 22, 2007, at 19:21:49
In reply to Re: Doubt cast on definition of PTSD, posted by capricorn on March 22, 2007, at 13:27:20
Ha My first diagnois in North Carolina given cause My Mother was sick and died when I was l7 and I brought myself up. Love Phillipa ps didn't do a very good job well I did have three college educated kids and they are very successful and I did have a great nursing career. So go figure?
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.