I really don't know what PTSD is. Nor do I know what is
PTSD. I know the definition, what the DSM says, but that definition seems way
too small to me, inadequately capturing the full human experience.
Most of the "symptoms" described in the DSM are either expectable adaptive response to dangerous conditions and/or conditioned emotional responses.* The DSM's purpose is to define a disorder, but I can find no
basis for distinguishing a normal response to horrific events from a
"disorder." How much is "too" much of a response, too big an effect?
Who's to say? If I imagine a mother seeing her dearly beloved child hit
by a car, how long "should" it be before any thought, any reminder of
her child will not bring up the image in her mind and a flood of tears?
Years later, when she comes across a toy in the attic, might she not
break down in sobs again? If so, does that mean she's suffering from a
disorder?
I recently read a review of the book Wave by Sonali Deraniyagala. The
book describes her experiences subsequent to loosing both her parents,
her husband, and her two children to the Indonesian tsunami. She, as she
said, "lost my world." When I thought about that, I thought she was
exactly right. Doesn't our world, the world we really live in,
consist of the web of primary relationships in our lives? That's the
meaningful world, the world that concerns us. My connection to
everything else is much more tenuous and abstract. What's the right
response to loosing a world? She tried to kill herself several times,
drank as much alcohol as she could get, did nothing "productive" for
years. Any inclination I have to judge her response, call it too much,
"pathology," is instantly tempered by my own knowledge that in her
situation, I have no confidence at all that I would do anything in any
way substantially different. I know I certainly couldn't guarantee it
even though I see my writing this blog as demonstrating some level of
resiliency. The only way I can imagine one makes such a judgement is to
perform some sort of disconnect from one's own fears and knowledge
about one's self.
Categorizing
a person's response to combat or other horrific life events in terms of
a set of "abnormal" symptoms is insane. It seems to me to resemble
nothing so much as whistling in the dark. We are all faced daily,
by the possibility of tragedy, horror, and loss. Each time we get in a
car, or our loved ones do, some part of us is more or less aware of our
vulnerability. Do you track your loved ones' flights? As a parent,
are you a little anxious when your children, even though adults, embark
on a long drive? The reality of sudden, "unexpected" death is all
around us. We all need, and find, ways of dealing with the fear of
sudden, catastrophic loss, this reality stirs. One way of lessening
our fear is, I believe, to say to ourselves: "Those people who are still suffering? They're different, got a disorder." Implied is "I wouldn't be like them." Really? Are you sure?
I
think it is arrogant on our parts to imagine we can define what is a
normal or abnormal response to what is essentially a personal
existential crisis. What will a soldier decide to do about all she/he
has seen and done? They have seen how the animal drive to survive
obliterates all man-made ethics, laws, morals. They have seen human
beings, who they may well have believed to be made in the image of God, engage in
wanton butchery. They may have done the same and tasted a blood-lust in
them which, being so foreign to our conception of ourselves, they
cannot/will not acknowledge. They have experienced our essential,
undeniable vulnerability and meat-like existence; that a little blob of
metal can reduce to non-existence, obliterating everything. They know
that we, too, live in a dog eat dog world.
They have seen
that which everyone has told them were inviolate, first principles of
our social order betrayed like so much dust. Things like duty, honor,
trust, loyalty, decency, basic humanity. They may have done things that
violated there most deeply held and cherished values and believe there
is no real possibility of redemption or forgiveness. These are some of
the real issues combat veterans struggle with and then they come back to
a world that refuses to know much of this. A society that, all too
often, makes them either cardboard heroes, demonic "baby killers," or
passive victims of a malevolent government and, at best, offers them a
disorder as a way of understanding all they are going through.
So
since I have no idea what the "proper" or normal response to all this
is or should be, I can't imagine defining some responses as a disorder
and others not. I don't know what is PTSD: what response is a
disorder, abnormal, too much, "pathology." So because I don't know what
is PTSD, I don't know what PTSD is and neither, I believe, do you.
But
even more importantly, what does it matter? Are only the diagnosed
entitled to help, care, concern, understanding, compassion? Only those
with a disorder should be held deserving? Given the potential damage
that the diagnosis of PTSD can do, as I have detailed in this blog,
insisting on the absurd administrative requirement of a diagnosis before
help is offered is nearly criminal. EVERY combat veteran should have
easily available opportunities to seek assistance on his or her own
terms without the necessity of agreeing to be defined as having a
disorder. When we designed the program at Walter Reed we explicitly
defined it as available to any combat vet "having difficulty
re-adjusting to life in the US" with no mention of PTSD. I refused to
do a CAPS ** on prospective program candidates, believing to do so would
increase the likelihood of them seeing themselves as "having" a
disorder, rather than struggling to come to terms with their combat
experience. It was only because we stood "outside" of the normal
military mental health system that we were able to do this and that
reality was no small part, I believe, of what made our program
effective.
So let's admit we don't know what PTSD is.
Let's admit we don't know how a person "should" cope with things we can
barely imagine. Let's stop the focus on "symptoms" and symptom relief.
Instead, let us, as individuals, therapist, and society, embrace the
whole, struggling person in humble commitment to travel alongside. I
think it will improve the assistance we offer. And probably us too.
* In the June 3, 2013 New Yorker article "In the Crosshairs"
Jonathan Shay defines combat PTSD as "the persistence into civilian life, after
danger, of the valid adaptations you made to stay alive when other
people were trying to kill you."
** Clinician Administered PTSD Scale: the so called "gold standard" for PTSD diagnosis.
Roy Clymer
For the background and context for these remarks, please read my article on PTSD published in the Psychotherapy Networker which can be found here http://www.psychotherapynetworker.org/recentissues/1151-the-puzzle-of-ptsd or see a copy of it found on this blog titled "The Puzzle of PTSD."
