Who is behind PTSD term change?

Ron Capps is right on this part.

I think simply dropping the word disorder is wrong — it moves us further away from treating this as a combat wound.

After all , the military has been telling them that PTSD is in fact a weakness! Yes, that's right. Their "resiliency" training has been telling them they can train their brains to prevent PTSD and be mentally tough. In other words, if they end up with PTSD it is THEIR fault. Imagine sitting through their Power Point presentations and hearing that they can become mentally tough, then going through what happens in combat, discovering they can't just get over it, have nightmares, flashbacks and everything else that comes with PTSD. Is there any wonder why they think it is their fault?

PTSD: Weakness or Wound?
By RON CAPPS
May 8, 2012

This week, the American Psychiatric Association is meeting in Philadelphia. Among the presentations in the “military track”—a spate of meetings directed towards practitioners focused on military or war related psychology and psychiatry—the top listed presentation is titled “Combat Related PTSD: Injury or Disorder?” Based on conversations I’ve had in the past couple weeks with psychiatrists and psychologists who ply their trade among wounded warriors, this is the hottest of hot topics.

In the next year, the psychiatric community will re-issue its handbook of diagnoAses, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). The current manual, DSM-IV, defines Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. A core element of the discussion will be whether or not to change the description of PTSD in DSM-V from a disorder to something else. But to what? I’m convinced the definition must include the word injury.

Some medical practitioners believe that the use of the word disorder in PTSD discourages servicemembers from asking for help because they feel that a disorder is a weakness. I absolutely concur. Others inside the military community feel the same way. General Peter Chiarelli, former vice chief of staff of the Army, has pushed to drop the word disorder from the vernacular, referring only to PTS. I think simply dropping the word disorder is wrong — it moves us further away from treating this as a combat wound.
read more here

There was a time when I thought it may be a good idea to change it to injury considering the only way a person ends up with PTSD is after a traumatic event but after much consideration the word "wound" would have fit better. The word "trauma" is Greek for "wound" and that is exactly what it is. When you change it to "injury" it implies that it is not a lifetime condition and removes the obligation of the government from treating it as a lifetime condition. A broken bone will heal but an amputation is a part of the body gone forever. This is not a simple question and there are no easy answers.

Using PTS, Post Traumatic Stress alone would be wrong too. Stress is temporary. This is something you don't just get over. Vietnam Medal of Honor Hero Sammy Davis said, "We're not supposed to forget." during an interview I did with him at a fundraiser for Homes For Our Troops. He has dedicated his life to veterans coming home from combat so they don't just fall in line and expect to be able to just forget. There is so much that is possible that actually works but if we spend our time trapped up in the term we use, no one will have time to talk about what can actually help them heal.

Is there something more sinister going on here? Is this about limiting the obligation the government has? Who is behind this? Who is the person pushing for "resiliency" training when it has been proven to be callousness? We've seen the results of this approach and the death by suicide figures prove it does not work. The very fact less than half of the veterans needing help actually seek it enforces the core failures. Another fact not discussed is the VA is overwhelmed with claims and unable to treat veterans on a timely basis already but again it is important to point out that less than half of the veterans are turning to them! So what is really going on here and who is asking the questions that need to be answered?