Disregarding what it was meant to signify in the text, the description is interesting in any case, because it shows that PTSD is not a contemporary condition, reliant on our specific culture*, to occur, but apparently a more universal phenomenon.
Thank you for pointing this out!
*As I've seen postulated; iirc it had something to do with how our modern western culture distances itself from death and suffering and how we are thus unable to cope when confronted with it, or any other breach of the safety we are accustomed to. Lady Percy's description would be a good argument against that thesis.
I went to a talk on PTSD by a guy who's an expert in the field, and he had the quite radical proposal to eliminate criterion A: exposure to an extreme stressor.
Everyone in the audience went, "WTF? But that's the entire conceptual basis for the very existence of PTSD!"
He explained that the problem isn't conceptual, but has to do with insurance companies. The existence of Criterion A means that traumatized, suffering people have to prove that they were exposed to a traumatic event. Frequently they either can't prove that it happened at all (like rape) or that it was sufficiently and objectively traumatic (like your "animal slaughter" example, as people do indeed get traumatized by things that might bnot be traumatic to every person in every circumstance).
No other disorder requires proof of an experience, only proof of the illness. His solution was to eliminate the "event" criterion and go solely by symptoms.
I am reading a novel right now, a YA-ish Greek fantasy in which Persephone falls in love with a female Hades, and the Elysian Fields are actually miserable because the dead heroes all have PTSD for all eternity!
Thank you for pointing this out!
*As I've seen postulated; iirc it had something to do with how our modern western culture distances itself from death and suffering and how we are thus unable to cope when confronted with it, or any other breach of the safety we are accustomed to. Lady Percy's description would be a good argument against that thesis.
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Everyone in the audience went, "WTF? But that's the entire conceptual basis for the very existence of PTSD!"
He explained that the problem isn't conceptual, but has to do with insurance companies. The existence of Criterion A means that traumatized, suffering people have to prove that they were exposed to a traumatic event. Frequently they either can't prove that it happened at all (like rape) or that it was sufficiently and objectively traumatic (like your "animal slaughter" example, as people do indeed get traumatized by things that might bnot be traumatic to every person in every circumstance).
No other disorder requires proof of an experience, only proof of the illness. His solution was to eliminate the "event" criterion and go solely by symptoms.
Reply
Reply
Reply
(The Dark Wife
( ... )
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment