3 ms·
The article covers this: there were those who suggested physical causes, but they were, quite literally, out of fashion: Cf the article's mention of the, in thi
by PeterWhittaker 10y ago
The article covers this: there were those who suggested physical causes, but they were, quite literally, out of fashion: Cf the article's mention of the, in this case, possibly incorrect and ultimately distracting influence of Freudians and other proponents of non-conscious, non-physical causes.
- _delirium 10y agoThe article doesn't really cover this. It makes it sound like there was only "one British doctor" in 1916 who thought the cause was physical trauma, whose "views were soon eclipsed by those of other doctors who saw shell shock more as a matter of emotional trauma", a consensus that thereafter "held sway for decades", not to be questioned again until "yet another European war broke out", the Balkan Wars of the 1990s. That is not really an accurate picture. There was more than just Mott with that view even in the World War I era, and the article forgets one minor European war between World War I and the Balkan Wars, during which the question was reopened, with a number of physicians in the 1930s-50s arguing for a physical cause. The article wants to position this as a radical new proposal overturning 100 years of ironclad consensus, while in reality it's more of a recurring proposal that has had periodic champions.
- vwcx 10y agoYeah, and in some ways, the new study is a complete return to 150+ years ago. In the American Civil War, a theory of "windage" was put forward, that the concussion from a projectile's blast was responsible for "soldier's heart" in the head. And don't forget the stories in the late 1800s in the UK related to "railway spine" -- the documentation of psychosomatic effects following a railroad accident, attributed to torsion of the spine and brainstem.