PTSD Claims—figure8clementine

The amount of progress in Caleb’s six years of therapy has been frustrating for everyone.

—This statement makes an evaluative claim, expressing a judgment on the pace of Caleb’s therapeutic progress. The use of “frustrating” suggests a negative evaluation of the effectiveness of the therapy over a six-year period of time, highlighting the emotional toll on Caleb and those supporting him.

But ultimately, says Alain Brunet, vice president of the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies and director of the Traumatic Stress Laboratory at McGill University in Canada, “we have reason to be reasonably optimistic. Psychotherapy does work for typical PTSD.”

—Here we see an attributive claim, as the author references Alain Brunet’s credentials to reinforce the assertion that psychotherapy is effective for typical PTSD. This lends credibility to the claim of optimism surrounding treatment efficacy.

The VA tends to favor cognitive-behavioral therapy and exposure therapy—whereby traumatic events are hashed out and rehashed until they become, theoretically, less consuming.

—This is a factual claim describing the types of therapy the VA favors. The phrase “tends to favor” indicates a generalization about the VA’s approach to PTSD treatment, implying that there isn’t solid proof for every single case. However, it highlights a common approach in how they treat patients.

Some state VA offices also offer group therapy. For severe cases, the agency offers inpatient programs, one of which Caleb resided in for three months in 2010.

—This excerpt includes a categorical claim, as it categorizes different forms of therapy offered by the VA for PTSD treatment. It highlights that group therapy is an option and specifies that inpatient programs exist for severe cases, including Caleb’s experience. 

The VA also endorses eye movement desensitization and reprocessing therapy (EMDR), which is based on the theory that memories of traumatic events are, in effect, improperly stored, and tries to refile them by discussing those memories while providing visual or auditory stimulus.

—This statement provides a definition claim, as it defines EMDR and explains the theoretical basis behind it. It also contains an illustrative claim, illustrating how the therapy is an attempt to refile traumatic memories.

“There’s a fairly strong consensus around CBT and EMDR,” Brunet says.

—This quote illustrates a credibility claim, as it refers to a consensus among professionals in the field about the effectiveness of certain therapies for PTSD. The phrase “strong consensus” suggests the reliability of the therapies being discussed.

While veterans are waiting for those to work, they’re often prescribed complicated antidepressant-based pharmacological cocktails.

—This statement makes a factual claim regarding the treatment protocol for veterans awaiting therapy effectiveness. It describes the common practice without judgment but implies the complexity of managing PTSD symptoms.

To stay up to date on the latest advances in PTSD treatment, the VA collaborates with outside entities through its Intramural Research Program.

—This is an evaluative claim, which implies that the VA’s collaboration with outside entities is a positive step toward improving PTSD treatment. It positions the VA as proactive in seeking advancements in therapy.

Currently, the agency is funding 130 PTSD-related studies, from testing whether hypertension drugs might help to examining the effectiveness of meditation therapy, or providing veterans with trauma-sensitive service dogs, like Caleb’s.

—Here, the author presents a quantitative claim by citing the number of studies funded by the VA. This claim reflects a specific metric that can be measured, supporting the assertion of ongoing research efforts.

But a lot of FOV members and users are impatient with the progress. Up until 2006, the VA was spending $9.9 million, just 2.5 percent of its medical and prosthetic research budget, on PTSD studies. In 2009, funding was upped to $24.5 million.

—The mention of funding amounts represents a numerical claim, showing the change in financial support for PTSD research over time. This comparison highlights a growth in funding but also shows the dissatisfaction among FOV members regarding the pace of that progress.

But studies take a long time, and any resulting new directives take even longer to be implemented.

—This conclusion serves as a causal claim, suggesting a cause-and-effect relationship between the time it takes to conduct studies and the delay in implementing new treatment directives. It emphasizes the challenges faced in advancing PTSD treatment effectively.