Traumatic experiences have accompanied humanity for the entirety of its history. Each individual reacts to such episodes differently, and the examples of what is called Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder can be found in literature from various historical periods. However, the term itself was created less than 40 years ago. Ever since it was originally recognized, the pathology has faced critique and arguments about the validity of such a diagnosis. Since the definition of PTSD can be applied to a large variety of situations, determining what conditions fit the diagnosis has become a constant challenge for psychologists and lawyers alike. In recent years, the problem was further complicated by people becoming more prone to self-diagnosis after the Internet has provided them access to a large body of medical and psychiatric knowledge. All of these factors cloud the public perception of PTSD and make it more difficult for the actual victims of the disorder to be recognized. This paper aims to analyze the way modern society treats PTSD, point out the common mistakes related to the term, and name the ways it can be abused by people seeking profit or attention.
What is PTSD?
When Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder was first classified in the DSM-III diagnosis manual, it was defined as a chronic pathology caused by “a catastrophic event beyond the range of normal human experiences” (Friedman, Kean and Resick 6). Such stress causes a huge surge of adrenaline which, in turn, creates deep neurological patterns in the brain. Essentially, it means that the normal functioning of the person’s brain is overwritten by the new algorithm formed during a stressful experience. Certain events or images can cause that pattern to activate causing extreme reactions during normal situations. The common symptoms of PTSD include hypervigilance, insomnia, and depression. The disorder presents a serious risk to the health and well-being of the patient and people around them. PTSD can lead to violent outbursts, panic attacks, and even suicide. The patients tend to have recurring nightmares related to the original trauma and often recall it involuntarily.
Trying to cope with the disorder can lead the person to drug and alcohol abuse. The variation of this pathology is called Complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. It is caused by prolonged stressful situations with little chance of escape such as imprisonment, torture, parental and marital abuse. The patients develop a sense of powerlessness through a neurological mechanism similar to PTSD. In this case, the symptoms are more related to the social interactions. The person feels insecure and scared of people. Attachment issues are also common, as well as problems with emotional regulation. Dissociation, psychogenic amnesia and other symptoms of the regular PTSD are also common. There is little doubt that both disorders are actual pathologies which need to be addressed by psychologists. However, the exact definition of the disorders was questioned numerous times over the years. The reason for that is rather obvious. People always have strong reactions to highly stressful situations and are invariably altered by such experiences in one way or another. Defining what responses can actually be called the PTSD is a problematic task. That has caused a lot of controversy and abuse of the term which resulted in the discussion regarding the PTSD becoming unreasonable and biased.
Abuse of the Term
Ever since the PTSD was originally defined, the court psychology experts have been struggling to prevent fraud. Since the victims of the disorder are entitled to compensation from the person or organization which has caused the original event, faking the condition can be extremely profitable. That has become especially apparent after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. In an unimaginably cynical move, some people claimed to have gotten the PTSD from observing the smoke rising from the Pentagon in the distance, or watching the TV news regarding the tragedy. The victims can receive as much as 3,000$ per month. Many of the actual veterans also tend to exaggerate or fake symptoms in order to get the support. Some of them even manage to use the diagnosis to avoid a prison sentence. Jesse Bratcher has been sent for treatment after shooting an unarmed man to death since had been previously receiving treatment for the PTSD (McVay par. 1).
While his condition might have been related to the violent action, the leniency shown by the court is definitely questionable. However, there is also another side to this issue. While some con artists blatantly abuse the diagnosis to make money, people who actually need support can be stigmatized and face complete misunderstanding from their community. Any diagnosis suggesting psychological issues and abnormalities can lead to the person being shunned and avoided. For the people suffering from the PTSD such treatment can be especially harmful since the disorder often leads to depression which can be alleviated by social interactions. In the case of the C-PTSD, the effects of alienation can be even more severe. Since this variation of the pathology causes more issues related to social interactions and emotional regulation, the feeling of being left behind and ignored can lead the patient to such extremes as self-harm and suicide.
Misuse of the Term
With the advent of the Internet, the public was faced with another kind of the abuse of the term PTSD. Since lately the society has been obsessed with the notion of political correctness, a lot of people started to hide behind disorders to avoid criticism or reasonable arguments. The Internet made many of those individuals aware of the PTSD. Since the pathology is so difficult to define, it presents a convenient excuse for people seeking to protect their point of view. In the eyes of the majority, it is politically incorrect to harass and abuse people who suffer from mental or physical problems. While it is obviously true, this standpoint gives anybody an opportunity to rebuke any objections to their opinion. Just claim that a statement “triggers” you and any chance for a reasonable discussion will be buried.
The community will very likely see your opponents as abusers who only seek to harm a vulnerable person. This kind of behavior has only appeared recently, but surfing the Internet it is easy to find a lot of cases when a person simply avoids criticism by claiming to be suffering from the disorder. While it is true that some of those people might actually have the PTSD, it is unlikely that so many actual victims will be ready to share their condition with strangers on the web. Another problem linked to the misuse of the term is that people are prone to self-diagnose mental conditions. With a wide array of the medical information available online, people tend to think that by referring to various databases they can identify the problems that affect them without consulting a professional. A person might think that they have PTSD without actually confirming their claim. That makes them even more likely to use it as a tool in debates.
Impact of Misuse and Abuse
Both misuse and abuse of the term PTSD harm the people actually suffering from the disorder. The case of abuse is clear. By abusing the diagnosis people are able to receive the support they do not deserve and even avoid the deserved punishment. The more mistakes are made in identifying the fraud related to the disorder, the stricter the regulations regarding the PTSD evaluation become. If the tests get too strict, they may prevent the actual victims of the pathology from getting the help they need. A prime example of such situation occurred in 2000. The research on the PTSD evaluation methodic found out that the tests showed many of the actual PTSD patients to present exaggerated or faked symptoms (Calhoun et al. 1). That means that forensics experts could prevent many veterans from receiving the needed help. The regulations were relaxed significantly in 2010, but it is hard to tell how much damage exactly the fraudulent claims had caused by that point. And on the other hand, the less strict regulations used today may allow many more fraudulent claims to be accepted. That might lead to a huge waste of the governmental funds meant for the people actually affected by the syndrome. The damage caused by the misuse of the term is harder to understand but tangible nonetheless.
When people obviously use the PTSD as a shield to repel criticism, it devalues the actual pathology. They spoil the public image of the real victims of the disorder. Moreover, the tendency to self-diagnose the pathology blurs the image of the disease. When somebody claims to have PTSD from getting scared by the dog or overhearing an offensive remark, that makes the condition seem like a joke. “The threshold for classifying an experience as traumatic is lower when times are good,” writes Richard McNally in his book “Remembering Trauma” (15). Thus, many people feel justified in calling their unfortunate past experiences as a cause of the self-diagnosed disorder. These experiences do not fit the original definition of the PTSD, and most people are capable of coping with such events easily. It is possible that some individuals might get traumatized by them, but that is more likely an indication of another psychological problem which needs to be addressed by a competent specialist, instead of being used as an argument in the unrelated discussions. People who witness such misuse of the term might be led to believe that the disorder only affects mentally unstable individuals and have a warped perspective on the arguments regarding the disorder.
Need for Changes
All of these examples might lead the reader to believe that the term “Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder” needs to be retired in favor of a more comprehensive and less abusable definition. This is possibly true, but some of the researchers argue that the exact term is valuable in terms of addressing this specific mental disorder. According to Dr. Foa, one of the psychiatrists who have contributed to the PTSD research, the definition is sufficient and changing the term will not solve the problem (Lee par. 15). Other specialists have supported her claim by stating that the focus should be on changing the societal perception of the condition instead of its name (Sagalyn par.1). The change of the terminology might facilitate the societal change but will do nothing by itself. The perception of the PTSD is symptomatic of a larger issue. As the research indicates, the public regards psychology with skepticism. Many people do not treat it as a real science and claim that it does not use scientific methodology (Lilienfeld 1). Since this opinion is held by a significant portion of the society, there is little wonder that the PTSD is viewed as nothing more than a passing, easy-to-solve problem. If these misconceptions are addressed, the public discourse regarding the PTSD can be brought to a new level, and much of the abuse and misuse of the term will stop or affect the real victims less.
Conclusion
It is important to realize that the Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder is a serious mental condition which can lead to severe damage to both the patient’s psyche and the well-being of those around them. The only way to limit the abuse and misuse of the term and prevent harm to the actual victims of the syndrome is to change the perception the society has of the disease. If the common misconceptions are addressed and the PTSD is seen as something which actually makes people suffer, the public will have an opportunity for a reasonable discussion regarding the disorder. As it stands, the syndrome is being treated as more of a joke, largely due to people using the term for personal benefit without the regard for ethics or the suffering of others.
Annotated Bibliography
Calhoun, Patrick S. et al. “Feigning Combat-Related Posttraumatic Stress Disorder On The Personality Assessment Inventory”. Journal of Personality Assessment 75.2 (2000): 338-350. Print.
The article presents an overview of the study of the methodic used to diagnose the PTSD by the forensic experts. It uncovered that the criteria was too strict and could lead to actual disorder victims being accused of fraud. The article is useful since it demonstrates how difficult it is to treat the patients suffering from the disorder fairly.
Friedman, Matthew J., Terence M. Keane, and Patricia A. Resick. Handbook of PTSD, New York, NY: The Guilford Press, 2007. Print. This book is a comprehensive overview of the PTSD and the related issues.
It served as a valuable source of information regarding all aspects of my research.
Lee, Felicia R. “Is Trauma Being Trivialized?” New York Times 2003. Web.
The article provides a comprehensive overview of the PTSD abuse following the 9/11 tragedy with the comments from some of the leading scientists in the field. It presents an excellent example of the PTSD being abused by people seeking profit and attention.
Lilienfeld, Scott O. “Public Skepticism Of Psychology: Why Many People Perceive The Study Of Human Behavior As Unscientific.”. American Psychologist 67.2 (2012): 111-129. Print.
The article presents an overview of common misconceptions regarding psychology as a science. It also offers advice on alleviating those issues. It is useful in my work since it demonstrates the larger problem linked to the abuse and misuse of the term PTSD.
McNally, Richard J. Remembering Trauma. Cambridge, MA.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2005. Print.
While the main focus of the book is the trauma-related amnesia, the first chapter deals with the politics of trauma and presents a relevant overview of the reasons people view everyday occurrences as traumatizing.
McVay, Mark. “When PTSD benefits are abused.” The Denver Post 2014. Web.
This article summarizes the current downfalls of the policies regarding PTSD and the public perception of the disease with the examples of support programs being grossly abused. The article is used to prove that PTSD is not being treated fairly by the society.
Sagalyn, Daniel. “Key Psychiatric Doctor Rejects Name Change for PTSD.” PBS 2012. Web.
The article covers the views of the psychiatric specialists on the term PTSD and the problems with it. It is useful for my research since it covers the opinions of the professionals regarding the disorder and the social perception of it.