# PTS vs. PTSD



## Marauder06 (Apr 10, 2014)

I'm having a good discussion with a friend of mine over the "PTS vs. PTSD" debate.  He makes a solid case for dropping the "D," but I think it should remain.  What are your thoughts?


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Apr 10, 2014)

I'm not exactly sure where or how it would matter either way?


----------



## DA SWO (Apr 10, 2014)

Drop it.

It's a normal mental reaction to stress/trauma.

Firefighters/cops get it; people who witness horrific events get it.

Most of us have it and don't relieze we have it.


----------



## RackMaster (Apr 10, 2014)

I agree with dropping it.  Calling it a "disorder" just adds to the stigma.  It has been proven to be a true physical injury that can be easily diagnosed and treated.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Apr 10, 2014)

I do not like the term "disorder" when it comes to this topic. Google "disorder" and you get all kinds of not so fun categories dumped into one pile of shit.   Also, it has been my experience that that general public shuns that word, while the media salivates over it. 

He or she has post-traumatic-stress, period. The flip of the coin however, is that removing the disorder tag also takes it out of the medical category it currently falls under. 
Doing that could cause insurance companies to change or alter coverage and the way the VA treats it (which may not necessarily be a bad thing). 

My biggest concern is that we live in a society where perception is reality; taking away the disorder tag could makes vets and the general public believe that "hey man, you're just stressed, get over it. It's not even considered a medical issue anymore!"

In the end, I think you leave the disorder tag on it and continue to educate vets, the public, and the medical field in general about diognosis and treatment.


----------



## LogDog0402 (Apr 10, 2014)

Education is the best way to eliminate the stigma and until that is done it needs to remain PTSD.  Now if you want to talk about droppin' beats...


----------



## LOOON (Apr 10, 2014)

"disorder" is a negative term that makes it sound as if it is something "wrong". It should have never been applied when naming the condition. And "condition" would have been a much better fit.

But the damage is done, and it will never be dropped from the diagnosis. It's here to stay.


----------



## medicchick (Apr 10, 2014)

I've also heard it called PTSS (Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome) going back to at least 2000 when I was doing my medic training.  We were told to use that around the Vietnam vets as it was less ....disturbing I guess (can't find the phrase I want)...when we were doing VA transfers.  I don't have any feelings either way but I also don't have any formal paperwork about mine so it doesn't matter.


----------



## AWP (Apr 10, 2014)

RackMaster said:


> I agree with dropping it.  Calling it a "disorder" just adds to the stigma.  It has been proven to be a true physical injury that can be easily diagnosed and treated.


 
"Easily diagnosed?" Sure, but also easily faked. To my knowledge there aren't ways to "separate the wheat from the chaff." I agree strongly that PTS exists and that it can be diagnosed and treated, but part of the problem is that like many "brain issues" for lack of a better term, it can't be conclusively proven.

The recent passing of Jeremiah Denton had me read up on that expereince again, a few articles here and there. It reminded me of something I've read in every single account from a Vietnam POW: everyone breaks.

PTS is no different, but differences lie in an individucal's limits and those aren't known to any of us. One man's car wreck is another man's lifetime of agony. A couple of firefights vs. multiple tours. Everyone is different in that regard.

Until there's a foolproof way of diagnosing PTS, there will always be a stigma associated with it which will hinder understanding, treatment, and acceptance.


----------



## Marauder06 (Apr 10, 2014)

I think PTSD is the right description.  Most (probably all of us) have stress after returning from a combat zone.  It affects people differently.  When it's normal stress and people have a normal stress reaction to it, it is only PTS.  When it goes to the point where it causes a problem, it's NOT normal, and IMO a diagnosis of "disorder" is appropriate.

I don't buy the "de-stigmatizing" argument and think it could in fact be counterproductive.  If "PTS is normal," why would you ever even seek treatment?  Dropping the D from PTSD and making it PTS isn't going to change what your buddies and your CoC think about you.  It's not going to let you keep your guns.  It's not going to encourage more people to seek treatment.  Call it what it really is- a disorder- and let's deal with it from there.

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/disorder


----------



## RackMaster (Apr 10, 2014)

It is easily diagnosed but the individual needs to be willing to accept it.  Those "fakers" are both the problem with Dr's misdiagnosis due to laziness or the fakers having other problems (bipolar, anxiety, depression).  Plus only that person and the Dr know the truth.  And having others think they are "fakers" makes the situation worse and would prevent legitimate individuals from seeking help; because you may think or call them a faker.

http://www.ptsd.va.gov/ptsd/m/professional/dsm_criteria.asp


----------



## Brill (Apr 10, 2014)

JAB said:


> I'm not exactly sure where or how it would matter either way?



Right on man.  Call it what you will but as long as it's negatively linked to being bat shit crazy, it isn't going to matter.


----------



## reed11b (Apr 19, 2014)

There is "Traumatic Stress", what we experience and "Adjustment Reaction", the normal reintegration period after experiencing traumatic stress. PTSD is a specific long term physical and emotional reaction to traumatic stress that approximately 1/3 of the population will have for at least a period of time that negatively effects ones ability to maintain relationships and employment. Meet all the diagnostic criteria but functioning successfully in relationships and employment/school? Not PTSD.  Drop the "D" and you lose that important distinction.
Reed


----------



## surgicalcric (Apr 20, 2014)

Having watched the psych docs attempt to diagnose every catastrophically injured soldier with PTSD I am not a fan of how it's characterized or treated.  Watching from a clinical perspective the D only matters to those looking to put a classification on someone or stigmatize them, even at WRNMMC.

I would like to see it totally reworked.  I personally think it focuses too much on defining a person and not the issue at hand.


----------



## LibraryLady (Apr 21, 2014)

PTSD is an overused and mostly misunderstood term for Joe Q Public and Mainstream Media.  The two of them (JQP and MSM) will ALWAYS use it incorrectly, ascribe it to the wrong people (according to their fucked up definition) and in general stigmatize the population diagnosed with it.

In addition the sponsored-by-drug-manufacturers/bound-by-rules/uninformed/lazy medical professionals will overdiagnose it (see above comments for situations).  It's definitely an uphill battle.

LL


----------



## Evans (Apr 24, 2014)

If it's diagnosed correctly the "D" should stay. There is a difference though between PTSD and Acute Stress. If timelines are followed from the DSM V then it is a disorder and should keep the name.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Apr 24, 2014)

surgicalcric said:


> Having watched the psych docs attempt to diagnose every catastrophically injured soldier with PTSD I am not a fan of how it's characterized or treated.  Watching from a clinical perspective the D only matters to those looking to put a classification on someone or stigmatize them, even at WRNMMC.
> 
> I would like to see it totally reworked.  I personally think it focuses too much on defining a person and not the issue at hand.



I watched the same thing, as well as many soldiers who were diagnosed with PTSD who were clearly suffering from other symptoms. Such as depression and or anxiety, however, were given the blanket of PTSD forced into counselling and meetings that were unhelpful to the underlining problems, like hating their current situation, drug induced issues, etc.

I watched a female soldier who was sexually assaulted by her NCO receive a 100% over PTSD. That same soldier was caught in the barracks by myself and another NCO having a sex party with 4 other soldiers in another female soldiers room, after she was discharged and living off post. Now I can't and won't dispute the sexual assault or even the possibility of the PTSD from the event. But clearly she was suffering from sort of a sex addiction/disorder and should have been receiving treatment for such.


----------



## Chopstick (May 3, 2014)

http://www.military1.com/army/artic...-next-mission-destroying-the-ptsd-victim-myth

General "Mad Dog" Mattis weighs in on the subject. 



> The appropriately nicknamed Mad Dog took aim at a dangerous moving target: Post-Traumatic Stress. "You've been told that you're broken," said Mattis, "That you're damaged goods" and should be labeled victims of two unjust and poorly executed wars. The truth, instead, is that we are the only folks with the skills, determination, and values to ensure American dominance in this chaotic world.
> 
> To a now-silent theater full of combat vets he explained how the nation has a "disease orientation" toward combat stress. Mad Dog's death blow was swift:  "In America, victimhood is exalted."
> 
> ...


----------



## RackMaster (May 3, 2014)

No offence to General Mattis but he should stick to what he knows and let the medical professionals decide how to approach things.  PTSD isn't a disease but it is an injury, just like a broken limb and has to be treated as such.  It can heal over time but it takes time and treatments.


----------

