Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Deset Gled" data-source="post: 6168091" data-attributes="member: 7808">IMNSHO, the point of the rant isn't to ignore advances in our understanding of the disorder, it's that the name doesn't change the condition.&nbsp; You could say a soldier has &quot;PTSD&quot;, but you could just as easily say a rape victim has &quot;shell shock&quot;.&nbsp; As long as we realize the similarities in the needs of the patients, the terminology is superfluous.Put another way, advancing our terminology is not progress.&nbsp; Advancing our treatment is progress.&nbsp; If you have a really bad broken leg, your world is a better place because you had laparoscopic surgery to put titanium pins in place instead of lying in traction for 9 months.&nbsp; Your world is not a better place because you had a transverse type-C femoral fracture instead of a compound break.&nbsp; The line is blurred because we sometimes change the names at the same rate that we change the treatment, but that doesn't change the focus on what is important.Furthermore, it's easy to look back and say that this terminology change is important and now we are characterizing it properly; &quot;PTSD&quot; is the notable shift because it's when we finally got it right.&nbsp; But if we were having this conversation 40 years ago, we could be looking back and saying that &quot;battle fatigue&quot; was meaningless but now that we're treating &quot;operational exhaustion&quot; we finally got it right.&nbsp; And 40 years from now when the the DSM VII is out people will say that PTSD was a meaningless shift and we finally realize everyone has OMGWTFBBQ.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Deset Gled, post: 6168091, member: 7808"] IMNSHO, the point of the rant isn't to ignore advances in our understanding of the disorder, it's that the name doesn't change the condition. You could say a soldier has "PTSD", but you could just as easily say a rape victim has "shell shock". As long as we realize the similarities in the needs of the patients, the terminology is superfluous. Put another way, advancing our terminology is not progress. Advancing our treatment is progress. If you have a really bad broken leg, your world is a better place because you had laparoscopic surgery to put titanium pins in place instead of lying in traction for 9 months. Your world is not a better place because you had a transverse type-C femoral fracture instead of a compound break. The line is blurred because we sometimes change the names at the same rate that we change the treatment, but that doesn't change the focus on what is important. Furthermore, it's easy to look back and say that [I]this [/I]terminology change is important and now we are characterizing it properly; "PTSD" is the notable shift because it's when we finally got it right. But if we were having this conversation 40 years ago, we could be looking back and saying that "battle fatigue" was meaningless but now that we're treating "operational exhaustion" we finally got it right. And 40 years from now when the the DSM VII is out people will say that PTSD was a meaningless shift and we finally realize everyone has OMGWTFBBQ. [/QUOTE]

Verification