Section 13

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

Taking a look at the opening sentence of section 13, it is notably an evaluative claim. Why? The author is judging Caleb’s lack of progress on the whole in relation to his surroundings. The quality of therapy is being judged in efforts of advancing past Caleb’s PTSD. Unfortunately, the author receives the sentiment of frustration from Caleb’s surroundings.

“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.”

There’s a bevy of claims to analyze in the reference of Alain Brunet and his direct quote. Alain is given quite an extensive introduction, “vice president of the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies and director of the Traumatic Stress Laboratory at McGill University in Canada.” This introduction is known as a credibility claim. This is straightforward – the credentials of Alain are given to attach responsibility to the claim.

In regard to Alains quote, since it’s a reference to an expert within the author of the Mother Jones article, it’s fair to say this is partly an attributive claim. The author passes off the message it’s getting across through Alain Brunet. The author uses Alain to verify the sentiment of optimism for advancement in PTSD treatment and its effect. The first part of Alains quote, “we have reason to be reasonably optimistic,” is an illustrative claim to evoke a particular emotion out of the audience, optimism based off the vague term of reason. In this case, it’s a prelude to the next sentence, which is a factual claim. There is no room left for doubt in the sentence that “Psychotherapy does work for typical PTSD.” It’s interesting the author presents this sentence in a factual manner, due to the case study of Caleb in the beginning of this section, portraying the opposite sentiment than the factual claim it presents.

“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.”

Since this quote refers to methods being favorable over others to treat PTSD, this can be viewed as a comparative claim. In the eyes of the VA, there’s some non-verbal agreement that cognitive-behavioral therapy and exposure therapy are held on a pedestal in treating PTSD as opposed to other treatments. There’s some type of claim I’m also sensing in this quote that I can’t quite put a pulse on. The author uses the word theoretically, almost to demonstrate some model being pushed as a means to treat PTSD in a linear way (under the assumption all PTSD cases can be treated through cognitive-behavioral therapy and exposure therapy). But, as the quote implies, treating PTSD is not so linear despite commonalities across symptoms in PTSD patients.

“For severe cases, the agency offers inpatient programs, one of which Caleb resided in for three months in 2010.”

This sentence is a combination of both a categorical claim and a factual claim. As the section progresses, there seems to be a classification in severity of PTSD cases, as affirmed here by attributing Caleb to a severe case. In the same breath, Caleb’s stint in this inpatient program (classified as severe) was a total of three months in the year of 2010 (fact).

“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.”

For starters, this is an attributable claim setup by referencing the VA endorsing this therapy. Also, there’s a definition claim. EMDR therapy is introduced and encapsulated in a definition sense to explain this therapy (what it is and what it does).

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

This is a proposal claim because although there’s strong evidence these therapies work, it is subject to undergo further investigation as the primary modalities in treating PTSD. Also, due to the fact that the author is quoting Brunet again, the author is attributing this information to Alain, making it an attributive claim as well.

“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 a factual claim and a credibility claim. The author is definitively letting the reader know the VA is current with the latest PTSD findings and attributing that fact to a source. In this case, the source is the entities within its Intramural Research Program.

“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. The Mental Health Research Portfolio manager says the organization is “highly concerned and highly supportive” of PTSD research.”

There is a factual claim, a numerical claim, and an attribution claim. The numerical claim and factual claim are intertwined here in that the numeric (130 PTSD-related studies) is used within the factual claim that the agency is funding these studies to try and glean understanding on further PTSD treatment. The attribution claim comes when mentioning The Mental Health Research Portfolio manager. It highlights the sentiment the author is trying to get across, that there are entities aware, concerned, and supportive of treating PTSD patients.

“But a lot of FOV members and users are impatient with the progress.”

This is an evaluative claim because there is judgment (impatience) in relation to the situation (progression of PTSD treatments and their effectiveness). This entire section has been inspiring hope of new and improved treatment mechanisms, but the author subtly mentions its opposition, the FOV members.

“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.”

It is obvious there are factual claims in combination with numerical claims used in this quote. The quote runs off numbers corresponding with spending and funding. The claims are used to illustrate the spending habits of 2006 and that of 2009. Thus, a comparative claim has been birthed in this quote as well, that comparison being the spending and budget of 2006 compared to 2009.

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

After building up momentum and encouragement to new PTSD treatment modalities, an evaluative claim is made to assess the harsh reality of science. Implementing and publishing studies to back hypothesis take time, discouraging to those looking for a quick solution to PTSD.