Post-traumatic stress disorder

Does it exist?

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

17 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Facing the inevitable, psychiatry formally acquired PTSD as a diagnostic entity in 1980. It then discovered that PTSD had a bevy of nasty laylegal relatives (e.g., disability and personal injury claims). In response, psychiatrists have been continuously trying to refine PTSD criteria. There have even been cogent arguments that psychiatrists should take their own forensic medicine and formally address legally relevant behavior in the DSM. In the meantime, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and adjudicators sometimes stretch and pull the DSM-III-R PTSD diagnosis beyond justifiable limits to try to fit square pegs of psychiatric testimony into round holes of legal rules. Ultimately, however, lawyers cannot be blamed for misusing the PTSD diagnosis because only clinicians can make it. Casual diagnosticians may fail to apply the requisite symptomatic criteria or do so only superficially. In their haste to eliminate bogus stress claims, clinicians should not throw out the baby (authentic PTSD) with the bathwater (idiosyncratic 'stress' disorders and careless PTSD diagnoses).

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)413-429
Number of pages17
JournalNeurologic Clinics
Volume13
Issue number2
StatePublished - 1995

Fingerprint

Post-Traumatic Stress Disorders
Psychiatry
Lawyers
Forensic Medicine
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
Wounds and Injuries

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Clinical Neurology

Cite this

Post-traumatic stress disorder : Does it exist? / Sparr, Landy.

In: Neurologic Clinics, Vol. 13, No. 2, 1995, p. 413-429.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{a2a3ff2d8eb04593a3c5e5e5d271fd3a,
title = "Post-traumatic stress disorder: Does it exist?",
abstract = "Facing the inevitable, psychiatry formally acquired PTSD as a diagnostic entity in 1980. It then discovered that PTSD had a bevy of nasty laylegal relatives (e.g., disability and personal injury claims). In response, psychiatrists have been continuously trying to refine PTSD criteria. There have even been cogent arguments that psychiatrists should take their own forensic medicine and formally address legally relevant behavior in the DSM. In the meantime, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and adjudicators sometimes stretch and pull the DSM-III-R PTSD diagnosis beyond justifiable limits to try to fit square pegs of psychiatric testimony into round holes of legal rules. Ultimately, however, lawyers cannot be blamed for misusing the PTSD diagnosis because only clinicians can make it. Casual diagnosticians may fail to apply the requisite symptomatic criteria or do so only superficially. In their haste to eliminate bogus stress claims, clinicians should not throw out the baby (authentic PTSD) with the bathwater (idiosyncratic 'stress' disorders and careless PTSD diagnoses).",
author = "Landy Sparr",
year = "1995",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "13",
pages = "413--429",
journal = "Neurologic Clinics",
issn = "0733-8619",
publisher = "W.B. Saunders Ltd",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Post-traumatic stress disorder

T2 - Does it exist?

AU - Sparr, Landy

PY - 1995

Y1 - 1995

N2 - Facing the inevitable, psychiatry formally acquired PTSD as a diagnostic entity in 1980. It then discovered that PTSD had a bevy of nasty laylegal relatives (e.g., disability and personal injury claims). In response, psychiatrists have been continuously trying to refine PTSD criteria. There have even been cogent arguments that psychiatrists should take their own forensic medicine and formally address legally relevant behavior in the DSM. In the meantime, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and adjudicators sometimes stretch and pull the DSM-III-R PTSD diagnosis beyond justifiable limits to try to fit square pegs of psychiatric testimony into round holes of legal rules. Ultimately, however, lawyers cannot be blamed for misusing the PTSD diagnosis because only clinicians can make it. Casual diagnosticians may fail to apply the requisite symptomatic criteria or do so only superficially. In their haste to eliminate bogus stress claims, clinicians should not throw out the baby (authentic PTSD) with the bathwater (idiosyncratic 'stress' disorders and careless PTSD diagnoses).

AB - Facing the inevitable, psychiatry formally acquired PTSD as a diagnostic entity in 1980. It then discovered that PTSD had a bevy of nasty laylegal relatives (e.g., disability and personal injury claims). In response, psychiatrists have been continuously trying to refine PTSD criteria. There have even been cogent arguments that psychiatrists should take their own forensic medicine and formally address legally relevant behavior in the DSM. In the meantime, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and adjudicators sometimes stretch and pull the DSM-III-R PTSD diagnosis beyond justifiable limits to try to fit square pegs of psychiatric testimony into round holes of legal rules. Ultimately, however, lawyers cannot be blamed for misusing the PTSD diagnosis because only clinicians can make it. Casual diagnosticians may fail to apply the requisite symptomatic criteria or do so only superficially. In their haste to eliminate bogus stress claims, clinicians should not throw out the baby (authentic PTSD) with the bathwater (idiosyncratic 'stress' disorders and careless PTSD diagnoses).

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0029050329&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0029050329&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 13

SP - 413

EP - 429

JO - Neurologic Clinics

JF - Neurologic Clinics

SN - 0733-8619

IS - 2

ER -