I went to a talk on PTSD by a guy who's an expert in the field, and he had the quite radical proposal to eliminate criterion A: exposure to an extreme stressor.
Everyone in the audience went, "WTF? But that's the entire conceptual basis for the very existence of PTSD!"
He explained that the problem isn't conceptual, but has to do with insurance companies. The existence of Criterion A means that traumatized, suffering people have to prove that they were exposed to a traumatic event. Frequently they either can't prove that it happened at all (like rape) or that it was sufficiently and objectively traumatic (like your "animal slaughter" example, as people do indeed get traumatized by things that might bnot be traumatic to every person in every circumstance).
No other disorder requires proof of an experience, only proof of the illness. His solution was to eliminate the "event" criterion and go solely by symptoms.
no subject
Everyone in the audience went, "WTF? But that's the entire conceptual basis for the very existence of PTSD!"
He explained that the problem isn't conceptual, but has to do with insurance companies. The existence of Criterion A means that traumatized, suffering people have to prove that they were exposed to a traumatic event. Frequently they either can't prove that it happened at all (like rape) or that it was sufficiently and objectively traumatic (like your "animal slaughter" example, as people do indeed get traumatized by things that might bnot be traumatic to every person in every circumstance).
No other disorder requires proof of an experience, only proof of the illness. His solution was to eliminate the "event" criterion and go solely by symptoms.