Stress Disorder More Common in Women

[Armymedic]

Of course, none of this answers the question of why the spouses are being diagnosed with PTSD more frequently than in the past.

Lets stop this Spouses and PTSD thought line now... up until this comment:

I have a question, what is up with all the spouses claiming PTSD? If you watched the CBC profile on the medic who lost his legs in A Stan his wife mentioned that she has been given a diagnosis of PTSD. I know of people in my area that have been dealing with PTSD and their wives have also been diagnosed with PTSD. What is going on?

The article only stated that women (not military spouses) more frequently report the signs and symptoms of PTSD. No where does it mention military spouses. That is, up until 3rd Horseman brought it up twice.

Since, I have checked informally and if this is happening, it is very rare. Most military spouses have different stress reactions...very few can be Dx as PTSD.

 

[Strike]

SMMT,  blame that one on me.  I have a habit of trying to androgynize things.

Don't know who started it, but I know I made a point of continuing it.  My bad.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

This doesn't strike me as being such a mystery. 
As a generality, the vast bulk of the Army would be comprised of men.  Thus leading to another generality that by and large men will be the ones getting hurt in theatre.  Also a generality, if a man is married, chances are he is married to a woman. 
Now, with those basics (and this is in no way an invitation to debate any aspect of the a/m paragraph) ideas, by and large you have men going off to potentially get hurt. 
Regardless of gender, the ones who stay back have a hard time with it.  If you are deployed, you get to focus on your job, and do what you need to.  The loved one back home has no control over what is going on, and is way out of the info loop.  They just have to wait from phone call to phone call just to hear your voice and know you are alright one more day.   
We also have to assume that everyone who has a loved one on deployment inevitably engages in running worst case scenarios through their heads.  That knock at the door, and seeing people in DEU's and knowing bloody well why they are there.  You can create the nightmare ahead of time, then end up living it without the luxury of waking yourself up.  So in that, the stress portion is there for the spouse. 
Next, couple that with the fact that it is always so much harder to see someone you care about in pain than when you are in pain yourself.  I would have my leg broken a dozen times again if I could never have to see my 2 1/2 year old daughter screaming at me, pleading with me as I pinned her arms while a nurse had to put in the tinyest and most horrible IV I have ever seen into the back of her little hand.  Tears running down from her beautiful blue eyes that are looking square into mine with hurt and betrayal saying "No daddy, please, I'll be a good girl, please don't let her hurt me, I just want to go to bed, please daddy, it hurts".  Fighting back tears because I didn't want her to be more scared, then fighting back a murderous impulse to smash the nurse into mashed potatoes when she couldn't find a vein six times in a row as I realize that they put a student in the breach to "practice" on my girl.  That shit haunts me to this day, and always will. 
So for a spouse, having to sit by and watch all manner of Hell being repaired on a loved one (possibly a son or a daughter) it is the helpless, gutwrenching pain that you can't do anything with.  I don't think for a second that couldn't lead to PTSD in any manner of forms.  Depending on how well an individual deals with stress, just hearing reports on the news of incidents could be driving huge nails of angst into an individual even if their loved one wasn't involved.  I know if I end up over there, there will be people who will be afraid for me from the time I lift off to the time I am back on Canadian soil regardless of what I tell them is going on or how well I think things are.  I think it is unreasonable to suggest that just because they aren't the ones engaged in theatre that they don't have any just cause (my words) to suffer from a stress disorder. 
Let's not get too hung up on who "gets" to be ill or not, and just work on taking care of whomever needs it.

 

[the 48th regulator]

Now there is the most sensible post I have read.

If that does not knock the "Fence" over of those that sit on it, God knows what will.

Plus one zip, cheers brother.

dileas

tess

 

[zipperhead_cop]

Thanks brother.  Even the sun shines on the dogs ass once in a while 

 

[schart28]

great post.. and in all of this "Let's not get too hung up on who "gets" to be ill or not, and just work on taking care of whomever needs it.. Its already a big task.

 

[the 48th regulator]

Thanks brother.  Even the sun shines on the dogs *** once in a while  

Geez, that's what I smelled, good thing it wasn't burnt toast, otherwise Mike would be liable and we would lose this fair site....

dileas

tess

 

[3rd Horseman]

I am still firmly planted on the other side of the fence. Nice emotional article Zipper and it does give one pause but it is not what I was arguing and it is not a logical argument just an emotional one.

  I think it is unreasonable to suggest that just because they aren't the ones engaged in theatre that they don't have any just cause (my words) to suffer from a stress disorder.
 I agree with your statement and have always agreed with this. Its is just not PTSD IMHO.

Let's not get too hung up on who "gets" to be ill or not, and just work on taking care of whomever needs it.

We can all agree I think on this last statement as it pertains to the getting help issue, I certainly support that and always have. Where we disagree is the handle put on the issue. I don't believe that anyone here is arguing that they don't get or need help. Just that from my side of the fence it is not PTSD.

What is needed from my perspective is a clear separation of the diagnosis into categories such as "Combat Stress" "PTSD" "Acute Stress Disorder" and Acute emotional stress reaction". As we debate the DSM is being debated also and I think and hope we will see those new changes in the DSM V.

So in conclusion for those that want to flame me and still dont read the reality of my intentions because they get caught up with the emotion of the argument not the substance, let me be clear: I have always believed that the spouse is effected emotionally by the ordeals of the deloyed spouse....just not PTSD....choose any other disorder you want I just cant buy PTSD. 



edit typo

 

[Michael OLeary]

I am still firmly planted on the other side of the fence. Nice emotional article Zipper and it does give one pause but it is not what I was arguing and it is not a logical argument just an emotional one.

We can all agree I think on this last statement as it pertains to the getting help issue, I certainly support that and always have. Where we disagree is the handle put on the issue. I don't believe that anyone here is arguing that they don't get or need help. Just that from my side of the fence it is not PTSD.

What is needed from my perspective is a clear separation of the diagnosis into categories such as "Combat Stress" "PTSD" "Acute Stress Disorder" and Acute emotional stress reaction". As we debate the DSM is being debated also and I think and hope we will see those new changes in the DSM V.

So in conclusion for those that want to flame me and still dont read the reality of my intentions because they get caught up with the emotion of the argument not the substance, let me be clear: I have always believed that the spouse is effected emotionally by the ordeals of the deloyed spouse....just not PTSD....choose any other disorder you want I just cant buy PTSD. 

You really think this is all about you, don't you.

You agree that the spouses might suffer, and that they can even have symptomologies similar to "PTSD", but since they didn't survive your particular circumstances they don't get to use "your" label, even in the absence of a clear alternative.  Maybe you need to try stating your arguments without YOU as the centrepiece.

 

[scoutfinch]

What is needed from my perspective is a clear separation of the diagnosis into categories such as "Combat Stress" "PTSD" "Acute Stress Disorder" and Acute emotional stress reaction". As we debate the DSM is being debated also and I think and hope we will see those new changes in the DSM V.

When you have an inkling as to the operation of the diagnostic criteria of the DSM IV, come back and post here.  Until then, why don't you stop with the armchair diagnosis and critique of those things that do not fit into your world view.

(And yes, I have the expertise to back up what I am saying.  Expertise that comes from education and training, not personal experience -- which, in my not-so-humble opinion, compromises your objectivity.)

 

[Strike]

Sam,

Exactly what I was about to say.

Just that from my side of the fence it is not PTSD.

3rd, shall we add MD to your monicker?  As it is the medical field putting the claims of PTSD forward then I tend to believe that this is actually what these people are living with.  Now, you can have your "opinion," but it doesn't make it the truth.

A friend of mine (also a doctor) once told me that we are all our best personal physicians, because we are the only ones who know what we are dealing with wrt symptoms.  However, that ability only applies to ourselves.  When we focus on the symptoms of others, we are making judgments, and not diagnosis, because we simply don't have the education to do otherwise.

 

[scoutfinch]

A friend of mine (also a doctor) once told me that we are all our best personal physicians, because we are the only ones who know what we are dealing with wrt symptoms.  However, that ability only applies to ourselves.  When we focus on the symptoms of others, we are making judgments, and not diagnosis, because we simply don't have the education to do otherwise.

One of my university roommates puts the end to your doctor friend's theory.  I was taking Psychopathology at the same time that she was taking an Arts elective in Sexual Behaviours.  I knocked on her door one morning and she was sitting on her bed crying.  She had dug out one of my text books on abnormal psychology and one of hers.  She had managed to diagnose herself with about 15 personality disorders and atleast as many sexually transmitted diseases or sexually deviant behaviours (despite not having been sexually active for almost a year!).  It took me atleast 1/2 hour to explain to her that 'ticking in the box' beside any particular symptom and then tallying up the ticks did not constitute a diagnosis of psychopathology or STDs.

It was too funny.  We still laugh about it.

The lesson to  be learned is that there is a little of each of us in all of those lists of symptoms.  It is when any particular symptom or group of symptoms inhibits our functioning or has a negative impact on our relationships, that we need to stop and examine our behaviours to determine whether the consequences of our behaviours are suffiently negative that we should seek medical attention for a proper diagnosis.  Never self diagnose.  Never diagnose others.  Direct people to seek help from experts.

 

[TCBF]

'And yes, I have the expertise to back up what I am saying.  Expertise that comes from education and training, not personal experience -- which, in my not-so-humble opinion, compromises your objectivity.)'

- This is a great forumn to make a statement like THAT!  Perhaps after you add experience to your impressive list of qualifications, you may sing a different tune.  One might say that education and training would also compromise one's objectivity - no?

Tom

 

[Armymedic]

What is needed from my perspective is a clear separation of the diagnosis into categories such as "Combat Stress" "PTSD" "Acute Stress Disorder" and Acute emotional stress reaction".

Why? Is not the treatment of each of the acute anxiety conditions you meantion pretty much the same?

And besides the DSM-IV-TR warns that, because it is produced for mental health specialists, its use by people without clinical training can lead to inappropriate application of its contents. They generally advise that laypersons should consult the DSM only to obtain information, not to make diagnoses, and that people who may have a mental disorder should be referred to psychiatric counseling or treatment.

 

[battleaxe]

Do we have any MDs/psychologists in the house? Thoughts from them?

It is a fact that the only people who can truly diagnose anyone with anything is an MD-I don't think anyone here assumes they can diagnose someone via internet.  It is also a fact that everybody here agrees that wives (spouses) experience a lot of stress and can suffer many reactions to it. I haven't seen anything to the contrary.
One thing I wanted to know- and somebody mentioned this- is how many of these spousal PTSD cases are we talking about?  Not too many, I can't imagine. Are we having a very big argument over one or two incidents?
Or, is this maybe about the greater issue - (and this is way off the original topic so send it elswhere, please, if more appropriate)- of who is entitled to the diagnosis of PTSD?

I agree with 3rd Horseman when he says it has to be differentiated in some way.  My biggest concern- I stated before- is that the seriousness of the condition our soldiers suffer (and those who suffer serious war crimes- any number of unthinkable things) will be diluted and trivialized.
Someone listed a bullying site as a link for PTSD.  I guess I'm quite judgemental when I say I think that bullying-while certainly stressful and unfortunate- is not on the same level of horrible as the things that many of you experience/experienced.  I don't know- I've only dealt with those like you as patients- what are your personal thoughts?

I would say that it doesn't really matter in the slightest what the diagnosis is - as long as someone is treated accordingly. Except that, in this case,  I'm afraid that what they do call it will have ramifications on benefits and how insurance companies operate with regards to this disorder. 

I would be reassured if I knew that opening up the diagnosis of PTSD to a broader spectrum of experiences would have no effect on the way insurance companies view PTSD and the way disability benefits are awarded.
Does anyone know, or have any thoughts on, the ramifications of bogging down insurance companies and medical resources with more and more cases of PTSD?

 

[the 48th regulator]

I would be reassured if I knew that opening up the diagnosis of PTSD to a broader spectrum of experiences would have no effect on the way insurance companies view PTSD and the way disability benefits are awarded.
Does anyone know, or have any thoughts on, the ramifications of bogging down insurance companies and medical resources with more and more cases of PTSD?

And You were part of the medical community, that treated us who  served???  Bogging down?

It is attitudes like this comment, and that of what 3rd has been stating, that has caused troops, and their wives, to hide the fact they are suffering.  Who would want to seek help for PTSD when they woukd be considered a burden "bogging" down the system.

Disgusting comment, to say the least.

dileas

tess

 

[3rd Horseman]

Good question.

Why? - So it is more easily defined thus it is easier to understand to those that suffer and those that deal with them. Why would anyone argue a better more clear differentiation between the diagnosis is a bad thing.

Is not the treatment of each of the acute anxiety conditions you meantion pretty much the same?

I am not an expert so my comment is only a guess but I would agree with you that the treatment is very similar. But then I have never argued it was not just that the wording of the diagnosis should be different.

 

[3rd Horseman]

and that of what 3rd has been stating, that has caused troops, and their wives, to hide the fact they are suffering.  Who would want to seek help for PTSD when they woukd be considered a burden "bogging" down the system.

48,

  I obviously have not been clear with my arguments as what you have said when you included me is the farthist thing from my intentions. It has been my intention with my arguments that soldiers would find it easier to come forward if there was a split of the diagnosis. Now I maybe bias and I will accept that as it may cloud my judgement but in the end I suffer too so why would I be trying to make things worse for soldiers?

 

[spud]

Does anyone know, or have any thoughts on, the ramifications of bogging down insurance companies and medical resources with more and more cases of PTSD?

Other then some things my ex-wife said to me, that's the coldest thing I have read in a long time.

potato

 

[3rd Horseman]

It is a discussion and presentation of opinions and arguments not an emotional spat session. Bogging down and ramifications is not a bad question if it was made with the best of intentions (which I think it was). The ramifications are a valid question. If it is true then solving that impact is important so that all soldiers and spouses are treated properly.

So instead of casting stones at people can we not have a discussion about the issues, whether we agree or not ?