[SaharaSon]

There is a move afoot to define Combat PTSD (and presumably Combat CPTSD) as strictly a military experience definition. Why this is being pushed so hard I don't understand. What is the motive? I think the whole arguement is superficial and not based on sound logic. If one wanted to start two classifications to seperate out the experiences you could (but I wouldn't) create two classes of Combat PTSD, namely Military Combat PTSD and Civilian Combat PTSD. Clearly, beyond a shadow of a doubt, civilians are subject to, and victims of, active combat within active combat zones every bit as much as the military personel. The proof is that, in general, more civilians are killed, and wounded, in active combat zones, than soldiers. Clearly, civilians suffer PTSD as a result of being in active combat zones. To say that it is not combat PTSD is not logical. If there was no combat in those zones they(the civilians) would not have PTSD as a result of combat in those zones. We know that civilians are very much targeted in active, combat zones just like military personel. The examples are endless and legendary. That a civilian doesn't have the good fortune to have a weapon to defend themselves doesn't mean that they wouldn't if the opportunity presented itself. War history is replete with examples where civilians, who were combatants without weapons, became full blown combatants when they gained access to weapons. Who in their right mind wouldn't defend themselves if given the opportunity? Shalom.

[RubyRae]

I hadn't heard about that move.But I take civilian as meaning those that develop PTSD(or CPTSD) in other ways besides the military,like me,from things I witnessed and experienced in childhood.

IDK.

But,I am experiencing some PTSD symptoms right now and I'm probably not even responding properly or saying anything at all related to what you posted.Sorry.

[RubyRae]

Ok,I re-read your post and I get what you're saying now...

[Trace14]

Originally Posted by SaharaSon

There is a move afoot to define Combat PTSD (and presumably Combat CPTSD) as strictly a military experience definition. Why this is being pushed so hard I don't understand. What is the motive? I think the whole arguement is superficial and not based on sound logic. If one wanted to start two classifications to seperate out the experiences you could (but I wouldn't) create two classes of Combat PTSD, namely Military Combat PTSD and Civilian Combat PTSD. Clearly, beyond a shadow of a doubt, civilians are subject to, and victims of, active combat within active combat zones every bit as much as the military personel. The proof is that, in general, more civilians are killed, and wounded, in active combat zones, than soldiers. Clearly, civilians suffer PTSD as a result of being in active combat zones. To say that it is not combat PTSD is not logical. If there was no combat in those zones they(the civilians) would not have PTSD as a result of combat in those zones. We know that civilians are very much targeted in active, combat zones just like military personel. The examples are endless and legendary. That a civilian doesn't have the good fortune to have a weapon to defend themselves doesn't mean that they wouldn't if the opportunity presented itself. War history is replete with examples where civilians, who were combatants without weapons, became full blown combatants when they gained access to weapons. Who in their right mind wouldn't defend themselves if given the opportunity? Shalom.

Who is pushing for this move? The only reason I see this happening is defining treatment. Military are volunteers who are put into dangerous situations without a choice to leave or stay. The people over them are putting them in harms way and asking them to do things they really don't want to do. I've been on the VA site and the questionnaire for PTSD is so irrelevant to my CPTSD. Is this classification something here in the USA or somewhere else?

[SaharaSon]

Originally Posted by Trace14

Who is pushing for this move? The only reason I see this happening is defining treatment. Military are volunteers who are put into dangerous situations without a choice to leave or stay. The people over them are putting them in harms way and asking them to do things they really don't want to do. I've been on the VA site and the questionnaire for PTSD is so irrelevant to my CPTSD. Is this classification something here in the USA or somewhere else?

Trace, the reason this topic is relavent to me is that I have been in situations where I had one foot in the military side, and one foot in the civilian side. It wasn't real well defined or overtly defined, and I had an opportunity to see both sides up close and personal. Historicly, not all military were volunteers by any means. Check Vietnam. Also, not all combantants wear uniforms. Also, the civilians that are caught in dangerous active combat zones are not, repeat not, there by choice, but often they can't leave because of martial law, or they are simply trapped. No way out. Effectively, there is little difference, neither the soldiers, nor the civilians, want to be there in a dangerous active combat zone, but there they both are, non the less. If anything, the situation is worse for the civilians, because they don't have the effective means to defend themselves, hence intense helplessness. The CPTSD is relavent here, because many of the civilians are children, who are trapped, long term, and/or repeatedly, in dangerous active combat zones with no, absolutely no, means of escape, like I was. Beyond that, many of the civilians, and children, are prisoners of war, like I was, which clearly and cleanly places them into classicly defined CPTSD, as well as classicly defined, general PTSD. Shalom.

[SaharaSon]

Originally Posted by RubyRae

Ok,I re-read your post and I get what you're saying now...

RubyRae, I hope my long answer back to Trace will help to further clear up the roles the military and civilians both play in dangerous active combat zones. It's a scary place to be, weather you are military, or you are civilian. The important thing is not what you are wearing, and weather you are carrying a gun. The important thing is weather, you, as a soldier or a civilian, are in the line of fire, to be shot to death, or exploded by ordinace, or even gased. Clearly, it is more dangerous to be a civilian in a active combat zone than to be a soldier. No question about it. Check the statistics. Thanks RubyRae. I hope the topic is not too painful. Shalom.

[SoupDragon]

I guess this is why my T encourages me to stay away from labels and just focus on symptoms, as T says it doesn't matter what the trigger is, but it is the response / resultant impact on wellbeing that is important.

[reb569]

I think Trace may be on to something. Could it be so the VA (or other veterans organizations in other countries) has a unique classification for military service members who have combat PTSD or CPTSD for treatment purposes.

It totally agree that civilians caught in a war situation or pow situation can suffer the same, if not worse, as an armed soldier.

[SaharaSon]

Originally Posted by SoupDragon

I guess this is why my T encourages me to stay away from labels and just focus on symptoms, as T says it doesn't matter what the trigger is, but it is the response / resultant impact on wellbeing that is important.

I agree with your T. It's not logical. Shalom.

[SaharaSon]

Originally Posted by reb569

I think Trace may be on to something. Could it be so the VA (or other veterans organizations in other countries) has a unique classification for military service members who have combat PTSD or CPTSD for treatment purposes.

It totally agree that civilians caught in a war situation or pow situation can suffer the same, if not worse, as an armed soldier.

If they arbitrarly insist, that Combat PTSD applies only to the military, it is not logical, or correct. Because, clearly, Combat PTSD applies every bit as much to civilians, who are in Active Combat Zones, as well. As I said at the beginning of the thread, if someone wants to put additional labels on, it would have to be Military Combat PTSD and Civilian Combat PTSD, for both were in Active Combat Zones. It is important, because all of the civilians who were in Active Combat Zones, and there are more of them than there is military, are being mislabeled (incorrectly labeled) as not having Combat PTSD, and invalidated as well, as to whether or not they have Combat PTSD. They both, military and civilians, went through the exact same hell. Medically, they have all the same symptoms, and they recieved those symptoms because they were both in Active Combat Zones. If neither the military, nor the civilians were in an Active Combat Zone, neither would have had Combat PTSD. Its a difference without a distinction. No difference.
Shalom.

[reb569]

Originally Posted by SaharaSon

If they arbitrarly insist, that Combat PTSD applies only to the military, it is not logical, or correct. Because, clearly, Combat PTSD applies every bit as much to civilians, who are in Active Combat Zones, as well. As I said at the beginning of the thread, if someone wants to put additional labels on, it would have to be Military Combat PTSD and Civilian Combat PTSD, for both were in Active Combat Zones. It is important, because all of the civilians who were in Active Combat Zones, and there are more of them than there is military, are being mislabeled (incorrectly labeled) as not having Combat PTSD, and invalidated as well, as to whether or not they have Combat PTSD. They both, military and civilians, went through the exact same hell. Medically, they have all the same symptoms, and they recieved those symptoms because they were both in Active Combat Zones. If neither the military, nor the civilians were in an Active Combat Zone, neither would have had Combat PTSD. Its a difference without a distinction. No difference.
Shalom.

I agree with your point completely. I'm just trying to understand why something like that would be done.

[SaharaSon]

Originally Posted by reb569

I agree with your point completely. I'm just trying to understand why something like that would be done.

I'm with you Reb, I don't understand why there is a real push for this. I just think the civilians who were in Active Combat Zones and suffered greatly, are about to get dissed. You know what they say, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions". Shalom.