Can serving on a Jury give you PTSD?

[TimG]

1 minute ago, BC_chick said:

Yep, like transgenders and climate change.  All fake.

Transgender is another case where creating 'narrative' that people can have the 'wrong body' leads to more messed up people believing they have the 'wrong body' when many of these people would have found other ways to deal with their issues if such a narrative did not exist.

Humans are are very good a fooling themselves. It is simply naive to treat these kinds of illnesses as simple questions of fact. They aren't. 

2 minutes ago, BC_chick said:

TimG just denies anything that doesn't fit his bubble of reality.  

That describes you perfectly. I present a rational argument for why it is wrong to simply assume this is a question of fact. Your response is to hurl personal attacks. You are clearly unable to deal with ideas that do not fit into your bubble of reality.

[cybercoma]

You're not presenting a rational argument. Your argument is that PTSD didn't exist until it was defined. That's ridiculous and is so far from rational it doesn't even deserve a response. What's even more ridiculous is claiming that someone who faces the horrific details of a little girl being raped and brutally murdered is just making up the psychological after effects of having to ponder those details day after day with zero counselling available. That's not rational. You're being irrationally dismissive.

[dialamah]

8 minutes ago, TimG said:

Transgender is another case where creating 'narrative' that people can have the 'wrong body' leads to more messed up people believing they have the 'wrong body' when many of these people would have found other ways to deal with their issues if such a narrative did not exist.

Humans are are very good a fooling themselves. It is simply naive to treat these kinds of illnesses as simple questions of fact. They aren't. 

That describes you perfectly. I present a rational argument for why it is wrong to simply assume this is a question of fact. Your response is to hurl personal attacks. You are clearly unable to deal with ideas that do not fit into your bubble of reality.

Since there is history of people believing they are in the 'wrong body' going back throughout history, it's hard to see how a narrative could be the reason in modern times.   Not to mention the babies who are born intersex; what narrative were they exposed to, I wonder, that would cause them to refute the gender they were literally and often surgically assigned *at birth*?    

It sounds good to claim you have a *rational* argument vs people's emotional arguments, but when your argument ignores widely supported and proven facts and entire populations, it begins to look a lot less rational and lot more echo-chambery.

[TimG]

Just now, dialamah said:

Since there is history of people believing they are in the 'wrong body' going back throughout history,

Did I dispute that? What I said creating a narrative that this is some how a common or "normal" occurrence will lead to *more* people making such claims that would have never considered it or even needed it. I never said there were not some people with would fit the diagnosis whether the diagnosis existed or not. The same with PTSD which is a serious concern for some people who experience traumatic events first hand.

The argument I am making is creating a diagnosis for mental illness leads to more people claiming to suffer from it not because these people were secretly suffering from it all a long but because their mind latched onto the diagnosis and they created symptoms that support the diagnosis.

You can see big pharma exploiting this flaw in human psychology where they create drugs for conditions that were never an issue before..

This phenomena is sometime called 'illness inflation'.
Here is a reference to a reasonably credible source to show I am not simply making stuff up:
http://archive.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/new-and-expanded-medical-definitions-create-more-patients--and-a-lucrative-market-for-drug-firms--379981751.html

 

 

 

[?Impact]

1 minute ago, TimG said:

Did I dispute that? What I said creating a narrative that this is some how a common or "normal" occurrence will lead to *more* people making such claims that would have never considered it or even needed it.

 

I'm bored being a man, I think I will have radical surgery just for fun.

 

Nope, I can't relate to that.

[TimG]

4 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

I'm bored being a man, I think I will have radical surgery just for fun.

Mentally ill people mutilate themselves all of the time. The transgender diagnosis exploits mentally ill people by normalizing a belief that self mutilation will lead to some resolution for their issues.  Why do you insist on seeing these issues as black and white?

Edited October 19, 2016 by TimG

[?Impact]

16 minutes ago, TimG said:

 Why do you insist on seeing these issues as black and white?

 

How so? Just because I can't relate to self mutilation. I also can't relate to 'body art', but I don't consider someone with a tattoo to be mentally ill. 

[dialamah]

40 minutes ago, TimG said:

Mentally ill people mutilate themselves all of the time. The transgender diagnosis exploits mentally ill people by normalizing a belief that self mutilation will lead to some resolution for their issues.  Why do you insist on seeing these issues as black and white?

You seem to be starting from a point of assuming that people who feel conflicted about their gender are by default mentally ill.  No doubt some are, but if less than 5% of people who transitioned regret it, and the majority are happier after transitioning - how can you conclude their initial motivation was due to mental illness?  That does not seem at all logical to me.   If the majority regretted it, then you might have reason for your conclusion.   

Assuming mental illness in order to dismiss or ignore an issue isn't rational, either.   I don't think people who serve on juries should be expecting financial compensation if they do suffer from PTSD, but I'm certainly willing to respect them enough to not assume they're mentally ill, or have tricked themselves into a life of misery due to a "narrative".   To that end, I don't think it's unreasonable that they should be provided counselling - whether their symptoms are 'real' or 'imagined', is ultimately irrelevant if we have and provide the means to relieve their symptoms.   

Edited October 20, 2016 by dialamah
typo

[TimG]

37 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Assuming mental illness in order to dismiss or ignore an issue isn't rational, either.   I don't think people who serve on juries should be expecting financial compensation if they do suffer from PTSD, but I'm certainly willing to respect them enough to not assume they're mentally ill, or have tricked themselves into a life of misery due to a "narrative".   To that end, I don't think it's unreasonable that they should be provided counselling - whether their symptoms are 'real' or 'imagined', is ultimately irrelevant if we have and provide the means to relieve their symptoms.   

Did you not see the reference I made to big pharma creating 'diagnoses' in order to sell drugs?
Do you believe big pharma is simply meeting a previously unmet demand or do you believe that big pharma is artificially creating a market for their drugs?

I believe the latter and I do not think big pharma are the only ones capable of creating artificial demand. This has nothing to with mental illness unless you want to say that everyone is mentally ill. This is about how the human mind works to provide facts that confirm what a person wants to believe. If a person wants to believe they have PTSD from second hand experiences then they will exhibit symptoms that confirm this diagnosis. The symptoms may be real enough but it is mistake to treat the person the same as a person who directly experiences trauma.

Edited October 20, 2016 by TimG

[dialamah]

2 minutes ago, TimG said:

Did you not see the reference I made to big pharma creating 'diagnoses' in order to sell drugs?
Do you believe big pharma is simply meeting a previously unmet demand or do you believe that big pharma is artificially creating a market for their drugs?

I believe the latter and I do not think big pharma are the only one's capable of creating artificial demand. This has nothing to with mental illness unless you want to say that everyone is mentally ill. This is about how the human mind works to provide facts that confirm what a person wants to believe. If a person wants to believe they have PTSD from second experiences then they will exhibit symptoms that confirm this diagnosis. The symptoms may be real enough but it is mistake to treat the person the same as a person who directly experiences trauma.

I saw that, yes - and I agree to a point.  But they aren't out there *creating* the the issues that people are experiencing; what they are doing is "medicalizing" normal experience and thus creating an artificial demand.

Being exposed to extreme violence isn't a 'normal' experience and big pharma does not have any kind of 'cure' for PTSD or for gender dysphoria - so they have not reason to artifically increase demand.  Add to that both conditions have been around a lot longer than big pharma, and your argument becomes weaker still.  It's not that you are entirely wrong in what your arguments, it's just that they do not  even come close to explaining the entire picture and so they continue to come across as a way to dismiss things you personally don't like, and not the rational analysis you'd like to believe you are presenting.

 

 

[WestCoastRunner]

14 minutes ago, TimG said:

Did you not see the reference I made to big pharma creating 'diagnoses' in order to sell drugs?
Do you believe big pharma is simply meeting a previously unmet demand or do you believe that big pharma is artificially creating a market for their drugs?

I believe the latter and I do not think big pharma are the only ones capable of creating artificial demand. This has nothing to with mental illness unless you want to say that everyone is mentally ill. This is about how the human mind works to provide facts that confirm what a person wants to believe. If a person wants to believe they have PTSD from second hand experiences then they will exhibit symptoms that confirm this diagnosis. The symptoms may be real enough but it is mistake to treat the person the same as a person who directly experiences trauma.

I am trying to make sense of your posts but am having a hard time especially given this last post. Are you supportive of this woman receiving treatment but not the same treatment as someone directly experiencing a trauma?  And if so do you think she is still looking for a cashout handout?

there are plenty of reasons that ptsd is very real for jurors, lawyers and judges.  

[TimG]

22 minutes ago, dialamah said:

I saw that, yes - and I agree to a point.  But they aren't out there *creating* the the issues that people are experiencing; what they are doing is "medicalizing" normal experience and thus creating an artificial demand.

And why is that different from the person claiming PTSD because of jury experience. The widely known PTSD diagnosis is "medicalizing" normal experience for people and creating an artificial demand for treatment. In this case the demand for treatment is for psychiatrists rather than for drugs. But there is no difference between the two. 

Note that artificial demand does not mean the underlying condition is fake. It means that demand is exaggerated by people taking normal problems and forcing them to fit the diagnosis because they want the comfort that comes from having others validate their feelings. They also hope to exploit the public sympathy that goes with a well known diagnosis.

Edited October 20, 2016 by TimG

[TimG]

33 minutes ago, WestCoastRunner said:

I am trying to make sense of your posts but am having a hard time especially given this last post. Are you supportive of this woman receiving treatment but not the same treatment as someone directly experiencing a trauma?  And if so do you think she is still looking for a cashout handout?

there are plenty of reasons that ptsd is very real for jurors, lawyers and judges.  

The symptoms are likely real enough and the best way to help this person would likely be to give the person treatment for the diagnosis she craves. I do not think she should be "compensated" at all because of the moral hazard such compensation would create. At most she should have access to the EAP that paid court staff have access to.

What I hope to accomplish is to get people to stop thinking of these things in absolutes and recognize that too much media attention on a diagnosis will create an artificial demand for that diagnosis just like drug advertising creates a demand for drugs. 

[Bonam]

The discussion of PTSD here is interesting but I think the other aspect of the OP here that's being a bit ignored is jury duty.

Jury duty sucks. You miss days, weeks, or maybe even months of work during which you are unpaid or are burning through vacation days if you have them, and receive very minimal compensation (if any, depending on jurisdiction) for your time as a juror. Further, you are exposed to the details of all kinds of crimes which may be just distasteful or unpleasant in some cases all the way up to traumatizing in others. Additionally, there are relatively few ways to get out of jury duty if you're being honest in your interview (of course, you can always try to be an actor and pretend to be a racist or whatever but that's not something an upstanding citizen should be required to do if facing the prospect of massive financial loss for being a juror). 

So really, we need to properly compensate people for their time on the jury and for the inconvenience and unpleasantness of being a juror. The government shouldn't be allowed to non-voluntarily take people away from their daily lives and cause them to suffer financial loss (and possibly other types of loss/trauma) without providing proper compensation. 

[cybercoma]

That's the issue. Absolutely. I want to see people not only properly compensated for jury duty but also to receive the counselling they might need in particularly difficult cases. Hell, any rape or murder cases or situations of domestic abuse or whatever. Jurors deserve more support.

[dre]

I used to think people with mental stress disorders just needed to man up and stop being pussies.

Then my 20 year marriage ended, my dad died, and I got sick and spent a couple of months in the hospital. All within 6 months. When I got out I started having panic attacks... like heart beating 170 times per minute, total loss of motor skills, etc. I started taking Ativan when I felt one coming on, and eventually I had to get counseling and for a while I was put on an SSRI. If something even mildly stressful happened and I didn't have either Ativan or alcohol around my body and mind would spin out of control. At first my heart was racing so fast I couldn't take my own pulse and I went to the ER thinking I was having a heart attack.

Needless to say, I don't think people with stress disorders are pussies anymore. I've broken my leg, 7 of my ribs, my left wrist, about 5 of my fingers, my collar bone, crushed the disks in my back at S1-S3, and L4-L5 (two back surgeries) . And none of those injuries are even CLOSE to being as terrible of losing control of stress.

Unless you have gone through this kind of thing, you just probably shut the fvck up.

Edited October 24, 2016 by dre