yes it is since PTSD comes due to one having an anxiety or fear which are both connected to the psychological component of a human being, thereby cassifying it as a psychological disorder

48

I don't understand your comment that "this may encourage relatively limited research". Do you mean that it may offer encouragement to the relatively limited research being done, or encourage people to do limited research?

And why would classifying PTSD as a disorder affect research? Can you clarify?

I'm a family doctor with more than 25 years of experience in Catalonia. I have seen more PTSD in the american movies than in my patients. Is PTSD a particular american way to express anxiety?

PTSD is a reaction to extreme stress or trauma that occurs either in a single incident, or over time. Symptoms include avoidance of reminders of the event, reliving of the event, nightmares, emotional withdrawal, depression and anxiety.  I do not think it is exclusively an American disorder, but it is easy to overlook it or to misdiagnose it.

Because it is so easily overlooked or misdiagnosed, it is important that it be classified as a psychological disorder. It is important to raise awareness about the suffering people are going through in the aftermath of psychological trauma and working on effective treatment.

There's Allan Young's book "The Harmony of Illusions: Inventing Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder" that may shed some light on your question. Great book I recommend it to anyone interested in this subject.

Diego, Have you read the book? Perhaps you could enlighten us as to the premise?

Why does the author call it "Inventing" PTSD?

Well that's exactly the question that the whole book tries to answer.

I quote you the following, which I think summarizes the book: for Young "PTSD is not a timeless or universal phenomenon newly discovered. Rather, it is a "harmony of illusions," a cultural product gradually put together by the practices, technologies, and narratives with which it is diagnosed, studied, and treated and by the various interests, institutions, and moral arguments mobilizing these efforts".

If you are interested I could e-mail you the book.

Thank you Ronán for your question. Despite a great deal of research into the biology of PTSD since 1995 (the year The harmony of illusions was published) a quick search on PubMed reveals far more research on schizophrenia and depression. It seems to me that the labelling of PTSD as a psychological disorder may discourage such research.

It is now recognised as perhaps the best understood psychiatric disorder, although there is still a very long way to go.  See:

Pitman RK, Rasmusson AM, Koenen KC et al. Biological studies of post-traumatic stress disorder. Nat Rev Neurosci 2012; 13: 769-87.doi: 10.1038/nrn3339 2012

This answers Diego's quote substantially although PTSD is still a controversial diagnosis and not a few psychiatrists devalue it as not a real illness.

As I have written before PTSD was captured in spirit by T.S. Elior: "Flesh is weak and frail, susceptible to nervous shock."  It is a result of being an average human being.  Life has experiences that overwhelm. Recognizing it as such one can work to prevent such exposures, help persons accommodate their lives to the experiences, and do so using all the tools we have available in medicine.

Some people will be more vulnerable than others, but is that not to be expected since we are all genetically unique?

47

There is a lot of research into things that Pharma can sell you drugs for. So lots into depression and little into GAD, PTSD; lots into schizophrenia and little into borderline personality disorder.

I'm afraid that what encourages research is greed.

 I agree with you Ronán - but the authors of the paper I introduced suggest that PTSD has become one of the better understood psychiatric disorders from a biological standpoint, although much work remains - despite the limited research. It worries me that the necessary research may not get done while it is still widely viewed as 'just' a psychological disorder. I see the trauma- and stressor-related disorders (although extremely variable in severity) as just as important and rooted in biology as all other psychiatric disorders. And that is not to in any way dismiss psychology in the managment of these or many other medical disorders.

Thank you Jan. I should have said "management and treatment" in my last post to make it clear that I am not arguing about the pharmacological  or psychological and behavioural treatments, but the understanding of the essence of these disorders. In the abstract of that paper your authors indicate that "PTSD is still largely regarded as a psychological phenomenon". My concern is that  referring to PTSD as a psychological disorder implies that it is fundamentally different to the other more serious mental illnesses. It is not and it is becoming increasingly clear that at a systems and molecular level they have much biology in common. My concern is less with psychologists  than with psychiatrists who would happily hand it over to psychology.

Thank you Jan, I hope you are still checking in here and sorry I have not responded sooner.

I have not been able to follow up on most of your references but I don’t disagree significantly with anything you say. The issue I am pushing is basically bottom up versus top down research. It is eminently appropriate that practicing psychiatrists and psychologists follow most diligently what treatments help and don’t help their patients – and particular what may cause harm.

            Since the manifestations of mental illness are located in the head and in behaviour it would also seem logical to focus on the brain but this is a limiting top down focus. The evidence is that these are whole person disorders, often associated with other systemic disorders and therefore, to understand the essence and genesis of all mental illness, a bottom up approach is necessary.

            The point is we wont know what treatments may be best until we know a lot more about their nature and development. There may emerge a whole range of new options.

Current research shows not only a close relationship between the chemistry of the various diagnostic categories ….

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27230456

….  but also some essential systemic systems such as the immune system, inflammation, reproduction and the skin and gut.

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25754082

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27216210

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26988064

What is more problems during the nine months of foetal growth are the first clear risk factors ….

         https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24146637

         https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26905950

 …. before the psychosocial and other environmental risk factors that impinge on the developing and adult person.

Disciplines and sciences are not the same thing and while I understand that much of what used to be taught in psychology has been scrapped in favour of neuroscience, psychologists have not all become neuroscientists.

Anyhow I suspect quantum mechanics (or the developing quantum biology) may well be the science we need ….

            https://experts.umich.edu/en/publications/quantum-biology

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25668717

…. in order to get a complete understanding of mental illness. Few psychiatrists or psychologists have more than a nodding acquaintance with either. Nor are you likely to meet many medical specialists who have studied it although quantum theories are already of practical use to oncologists, cardiologists, ophthamologists and I imagine some other medical specialists.

Aside from the issue of referring to some mental illnesses as ‘psychological disorders’ I was concerned when I discovered that a rubric of Rdoc was that all research under its’ mantle should include a psychological component. Neuroscience research, for instance, into the details of the effect of stress on the developing foetus, is clearly outside emotional or behavioural issues.

OF COURSE YES !!: In fact, the DSM -and the current DSM-5- catalog it as such; but the WHO International Classification of Diseases (ICD), currently the "11", TOO.