“The New Science of PTSD” (post-traumatic stress disorder) was a news segment discussed on Minnesota Public Radio News on 8 February 2010. The report, by Jessica Mador, examines the ways in which new science technologies have been employed by University of Minnesota’s Dr. Apostolos Georgopoulos, to more accurately diagnose those with PTSD. Georgopoulos, professor of neuroscience, states that according to discoveries with new neurotechnology, PTSD is in fact a “brain disease”. The article is focused around the return of Minnesota’s 34th “Red Bull” Infantry Division from Iraq—as the Department of Defense estimates up to twenty percent of those who serve will suffer from PTSD. It is here that I examine the implications of naming/categorizing PTSD as a brain disease vis-à-vis the objective reality of modern warfare. More specifically, I want to know to what extent does calling PTSD a disease of the brain take away from the realties of war? Is PTSD a social political issue, or a brain issue? These questions are rhetorical; they are deployed to speak the ways in which the news works to affect lives.
For many of the soldiers of the 34th Infantry Division that recently returned home, post-traumatic stress disorder may be a reality. Dr. Georgopoulos posits that PTSD is a disease of the brain, however, his claim raises a serious question: that is, to what extent does calling PTSD a disease of the brain take away from the objective reality of modern warfare? Understanding PTSD as a brain disease seems to suggest that the symptoms associated with PTSD lie in a problem with the brain rather than in the problems with warfare itself. This is not to say that the two are not connected—indeed, a sufficiently severe traumatic event coupled with a brain that fosters the anxieties and fears of that event are necessary for the existence for PTSD. However, labeling PTSD as a disease of the brain may only help to undermine the realities of warfare; those soldiers affected with PTSD may be quick to dismiss or suppress their reactions to war trauma under the assumption that they have faulty wiring of the brain. The Department of Defense reports that upwards of twenty percent of those who serve may suffer from PTSD, my fear is that we may see a rise in that number as a result of this publication. Those soldiers dealing with the reintegration process, and with the traumas they’ve experienced in war, may be prone to quickly diagnose themselves with PTSD, as they now have symptoms, causes, and explanations to identify themselves with.
PTSD is definitely a touchy subject, so I'm trying to tread lightly...
ReplyDeleteThe most recent reports on PTSD (according to a guest lecturer in my abnormal psych class) suggest that true PTSD levels are around 7% in post-war veterans, which is significantly lower than the 20% suggested. I think part of the problem with the report is that statistics will always lag behind new technologies, since these numbers are averaged over long periods of time.
My understanding of the 2nd half of your post is that if we change how we go about staging a massive war, we can avoid PTSD altogether?
It's definitely good to question the inflation in diagnosis numbers due to increased public knowledge. I'd like to see some more clarification on how PTSD does affect the realities of war. Good letter though!
Your understanding of the second half of my post is off a bit (this due to the muddiness of my writing). What I am trying to set down is that conveying PTSD as a disease may undermine the consequences of war. Thoughts, feelings, and emotions relived by soldiers in a traumatic way may become interpreted of abnormalities of the mind, rather than actual experiences that leave an indelible mark. It's not so much about changing the way we stage a war, it is instead about understanding the nature of warfare, and the challenges that are present within it. PTSD is, as you said, a touchy subject, but if we are to accept that PTSD is a disease, then who separates the difference between one who has served in a war and experience severe trauma, and one who served in a war, experienced severe trauma, and has a diseased brain? Are the symptoms of PTSD a social political issue, or a brain issue?
ReplyDeleteI can see why Ryan thought this might be a hard piece to engage; so many issues at stake and undefined (as evidenced by Dr. G's sort of innocent, but troubling use of 'disease.')
ReplyDelete• Is War Hell? Yes, it is. And we want to honor vet's sacrifice.
• Do hellacious things mark / change / alter us (through our brains)? Of course.
• Is it good to know that 'something happened' to the guys who fought and saw all that hell? Certainly. 'Brain injury' is the hardest of the disabilities (so the activists say) because they're invisible. So when Dr. G makes it 'visible,' he's doing a service.
BUT (and here's the point that needs to be clearly set off and specified): when we call things a 'disease' we change the lives of the person who 'has' it. Mr. Pre-Existing Condition. So to change war, its horrific experiences, the memories that remain, the way it forms / alters one's self into something analogous to an arthritic limb, or a 'brain injury' is dangerous and dishonoring.
Double trick here: (1) EDUCATE the readers as to the stakes (stigma of disease) (2) HONOR both the vets and Dr. G (for coming up with a good tool). Hard to get the words to behave.