| Liberty Pal |
| Seeking solutions for PTSD. |
©2008 LibertyPal
There may be a tendency to suspect that I'm trying to create a loop-hole permitting dwi. That
suspicion would be incorrect. Driving under the influence is inherently unsafe - for you, for
me, my daughters, nieces, nephews and the world at large. Don't do it!!
It is an increased health risk that people with post traumatic stress disorder did not ask for. It
is not their only, nor even primary, risk; but one of many. These individuals have been found,
in studies, to have increased risk for diseases such as heart disease, the number one killer
of Americans for years. Included on the list is yet another dignitary among killers: suicide.
These risks extend, even farther, beyond psychological health in other studies that link PTSD
to increased gastrointestinal symptoms and musculoskeletal symptoms as well. This is with
out the introduction of additional stress, condemnation, and associated loss of character
added through our current legal system and social stereo-typing. Statistics, such as an 80%
comorbidity rate, indicate the short-comings of our present system of dealing with this issue.
Remember that an 80% chance of developing a comorbid disorder is "the prize" for those
that survive the number 3 killer of people world wide: Suicide.
There have been a number of flaws in the treatment of my own PTSD. Retrospect has
provided insight into many innocent mistakes on the part of myself, and, on the part of others.
Application of the scientific method provides us the vehicle to identify, evaluate, and update
our knowledge on nearly anything we know, or, think we know.
Observations regarding suicide contagion have led to new guidelines about when, and, how
the "responsible media" should report suicide. Having this knowledge in hand leads me to
the question: What did my doctors (more than one) hope to accomplish by spending five
years repeatedly asking me if I'd gotten a dwi yet? Gathering pertinent medical history is, I
guess, the ready-made answer.
I don't believe there's a sign on my forehead that begs the question, and, I heard it often
enough to believe that others were asked the same question in similar circumstances. Do
we need to conduct a study to determine that one type of hot dog gets as hot as another over
the same fire?
Suppose, for instance, that you had a particularly difficult stain on your favorite window. You try to wipe it away but it appears to
resist your efforts regardless of what type of solvent you select. In frustration you begin discussing the troublesome stain with
some co-workers. One coworker suggests using steel wool to attempt to remove your stain and another half heartedly throws
in the suggestion of a hammer's good value.
Upon returning home you go to your tool box. Reminded by your pesky stain of your earlier conversations you begin looking for
steel wool. You move your hammer, screwdriver, putty knife, and various assortment of tools to no avail. Frustrated, impatient,
and determined to remove the spot from your window you grab your hammer. As you proceed to smash the window from its
frame the spot is removed and your view is, once again, unobstructed. Have you REALLY solved your problem? While it is true
the stain no longer obstructs your view what is the cost of your success? (if you can call it that)
While many of us would readily agree that the solution from the illustration above represents more of a non-solution than a
solution to a spot in your window. We have, however, allowed our lawmakers to practice similar "problem solving
techniques" with great liberty. As if in full recognition of the impropriety of their actions they instituted "mandatory minimum
sentences" that removed judicial discretion and have even attempted to circumvent our carefully established system of
checks and balances but we'll go back to that later.
resist your efforts regardless of what type of solvent you select. In frustration you begin discussing the troublesome stain with
some co-workers. One coworker suggests using steel wool to attempt to remove your stain and another half heartedly throws
in the suggestion of a hammer's good value.
Upon returning home you go to your tool box. Reminded by your pesky stain of your earlier conversations you begin looking for
steel wool. You move your hammer, screwdriver, putty knife, and various assortment of tools to no avail. Frustrated, impatient,
and determined to remove the spot from your window you grab your hammer. As you proceed to smash the window from its
frame the spot is removed and your view is, once again, unobstructed. Have you REALLY solved your problem? While it is true
the stain no longer obstructs your view what is the cost of your success? (if you can call it that)
While many of us would readily agree that the solution from the illustration above represents more of a non-solution than a
solution to a spot in your window. We have, however, allowed our lawmakers to practice similar "problem solving
techniques" with great liberty. As if in full recognition of the impropriety of their actions they instituted "mandatory minimum
sentences" that removed judicial discretion and have even attempted to circumvent our carefully established system of
checks and balances but we'll go back to that later.
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |