Talk:Posttraumatic stress disorder/Comments

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am concerned that the opening paragraphs on posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) convey a psychosocial perspective that implies the biological perspective is of secondary importance. This seems to be a byproduct of the applauded biopsychosocial approach which is taken to mean that biological, psychological and sociological explanations are equelly important no matter what is being talked about or, which is more of a worry, that which of the three is more important is open to a democratic vote. Following the introduction with the Neurophysiology of PTSD redresses the balance somewhat but would leave many people thinking that the biological changes are psychologically generated. The events that lead to PTSD are best discussed in sociological terms and there is no doubt that the personal experiece of such events opens up the possibility of endless psychological discussion. The condition itself also has social and psychological consequences but what it does inside the body is a largely biological concern. We know for instance that all animals respond with similar biological defences to threat and challenge, however well developed. or not. their brains and that past a certain point such stess can lead to illness or even death. As Joseph LeDoux remarks in "The Emotional Brain", Touchstone, New York, 1996, the emotions are less important than the functions that generate them. How can Wikipedia ensure a well balanced presentation of such a centrally important psychiatric condition even though some psychiatric opinion does not see it this way? Paddybw (talk) 08:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)paddybw 27th May 2008.