Psychological issues on ID?  

i think it is a bad idea but this bill is about putting it there IF YOU WANT TO. not having to.

The key word is "voluntary" danish. My husband was actually arrested one night when deputies responded to a fight in the bar he was in. I wasn't there to run interference and, when the deputy told him to sit down and shut up, he was entirely unable to. His friend did not start the fight and my husband was backing him entirely too hard. The bartender called me but I got there too late. the deputy lost his temper with my husband and he was arrested. The judge, of course, threw it out of court since he knows us well (he's a relative) but that didn't prevent a night spent in jail. If the deputy had been aware of my husband's disorder (he was new) he would have given him more leeway than simply "sit down, shut up or go to jail". My husband will push the limits every time.

I understand it is voluntary... but for how long is my concern? seat belts used to be voluntary

The "how long" fear factor doesn't hold water. PTSD is no way related to any other psychological disorder...even schizophrenia. But there are definite triggers that should be accounted for. PTSD does not equal emotional imcompetence, as evidenced by my husband's concealed carry permits...but you do need to deal with the millions of American veterans who suffer from this disorder in a specific manner.

I understand and I agree but my point is that they start with one thing that leads to another. While this is voluntary, by all means....

I agree. Shouldn't this fall under "doctor-patient privilege?" It may begin as "voluntary," but I don't trust it to stay that way, given how nosy the government has become. Then, too, since many people will see these drivers' licenses (you must have one to cash a check, for example), how many of these folks will lose jobs or be trapped in a lower level of their careers if the wrong person sees it?

I just have a lot of problems with this. There are far too many people who don't understand or really know much about mental & emotional issues, & they fear them! Next comes the stars & pink triangles sewn on sleeves, scarlet letters or tattooed arms, right? How far will this go? Will other conditions be added? And what if someone is simply misdiagnosed? They'd be branded forever!

Nope...BAD idea!

Maggiepie
"Turn off your TVs. Don't watch your MSNBC, your Fox, your ABC." ~ B. Obama
"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!" ~ The Wizard of Oz

I agree and would think if that person is for it ok, but I worry when it becomes mandatory.

I think "voluntary" is just the first step. It just seems like the logical way to get it started when your endgame is to make it forced.

Why do you automatically assume that it will be forced at some point? I know my husband...and his PTDS...well. If he's pulled over for a minor infraction...or what he perceives as no infraction at all...his stress level will definitely go way up. If the officer is not aware of his disorder and responds to my husband's reaction *as if* he was normal, my husband would most certainly end up in jail. He's not going to get out of the truck simply because the officer does not like his *attitude*...he'll take it to the limit because he can't stop himself.

seat belts used to be voluntary

Yes they did leglen, but this is entirely different. People who truly suffer from PTSD must be dealt with in a certain way or the results will be bad. Keep in mind too that, while there are many, many Vietnam vets who suffer from PTSD, not one of them have ever turned a weapon on anyone.

I agree spall, I am not arguing with that

taskr, laglen - there probably is not a sinister plan to enforce it later. however even the possibility (which seems remote) is a reason it is not a good idea. spall - i think a doctors note separate from the driving licence would be the answer if people want this.

jb, why do yo think it unlikely? Our esteemed representatives have proven time and again that they will take care of you whether you like it or not.... I dont think it is far fetched at all.

whether it is likely or unlikely to be made compulsory i do not think it is sensible. however i will let you lot argue about how likely it becoming non-voluntary is in your rather peculiar country.

lol thanks ever so...

I'll tell you why it's unlikely...because doctor/patient privilege carries more weight and always will. The government cannot make it mandatory that you reveal private medical information when applying for or renewing your driver's license. This is one reason why it's so hard to get elderly drivers off the road who are no longer capable of driving safely.

hhmmm didnt we think that about credit? now employers and landlords can access this. I think its great that you have so much faith. I do not. I bet ten years ago if I told you that the government could FORCE you to purchase something, you would say no way....

No, laglen (I'm working on your blood pressure again), I never thought that about credit and you're talking about two entirely different things. Your right to keep your medical records private are protected by federal law and, no, I don't see that changing just so something can be slapped on your driver's license or for any other reason. You know how congress is just as well as I do. Changing the law regarding the privacy of medical records would take months of hearings, debate and then voting. It would not fly with the public. It has nothing to do with faith...it has to do with knowing federal law and how the system works.

Spall - did you not see when they pushed through a health care bill where the MAJORITY of Americans were against it?

Yes, I saw that but that's not the same thing as federal law that already in practice. Remember HIPAA?

spall, in ten years I want to call you and say "remember HIPPA?"

Ok, but you might have to speak up a little bit when you call because I'll be well over 60 by then and my hearing is already going.

lol ok I am writing in my day planner with a footnote to speak up!

Spall but you have to remember the only way this will help a person with ptsd is if the officers have full training on handling individuals with ptsd. A lot of civillians see this as a BS diagnosis and that just get over it attitude. This is a total overhaul of how police must think, they have to realize classes in phsyc must be taken to deal with the effects of the disorder.

Before passing this bill they must already have trained all officers. Do it right and not half arsed.

good point gramma.
Spall - hey what about a bracelet like other issues that require special attention. In an instance like with your husband, they would probably have better luck seeing a bracelet than his ID that is in his pocket.

I agree with grammasnook that law enforcement should be trained in effective ways of dealing with people who suffer from PTSD. The bs disgnosis way of thinking is all too common these days. We have a couple of nephews in particular who think it's so funny to express to their uncle how he's "getting over" on the V.A. but they don't see how hard my husband's psychiatrist and I work to keep him stable. I asked him about wearing a bracelet like our granddaughter who has diabetes does and he's not in favor of that. He wants to be seen as normal but will agree to the designation on his license. This illness/disorder is not something that those who suffer from it want to display as a shield for the general public. According to my husband, he fought for this country, that experience forever changed him and he has the right to be respected.

Now THAT is something I could get on board with!

You've offered a couple of complete misconceptions here, nyholly. First of all, the people who suffer from PTSD are not psychotic so they're not automatically a risk to society or to a police officer. My husband is a Vietnam vet and he has a concealed carry permit. We have weapons in our vehicles. He has never once been a danger to law enforcement...nor would he ever be. His problem is that his reaction to stress is to automatically be uncooperative. Get out of the vehicle? Make me. That's how it normally works. People who suffer from PTSD are not killers...I challange you to find one example of straight PTSD. They are not schizophrenic...they are in complete control of reality...it's their reactions to reality that cause a problem.

ok, I see the point that holly is making though. Spall I understand your desire to give facts on this issue and I think if more people understood it, it would be better. Holly is trying to point out why stop at PTSD?

Hi spalladino!

Well, I'm sorry if you feel I was trying to lead people astray with my previous response as that is never my intent when I respond to any discussion.
Granted, you may be an expert on your husband and his particular problems with PTSD, but I also know PTSD sufferers as well--not all of them vets. Every person is different--and even though PTSD sufferers have some components in common, due to the diagnosis, not all can be put in the same box-- that may be a misconception on your part. I have no reason to doubt that your husband is not a danger to law enforcement, but that is not true of everyone who has that diagnosis. If all of them were not a danger, why have the designation in the first place, then?

Society as a whole doesn't understand most mental illnesses--and so, they tend to treat them all the same.
That's where the problem lies, imho--lack of understanding and education, not only by the police, but by society in general. It's precisely why I think it's a bad idea to have the license designation. Due to lack of understanding, most police officers and the public would discriminate against all PTSD sufferers. They aren't going to take the time to differentiate between various levels of PTSD, particularly in the time of a crisis.

Nowhere in my previous response did I say they were schizophrenic, or psychotic, or killers. Nowhere in my response did I say that they are not in control of reality, although some are not, when they are having an episode. I believe you are correct when you say that it's their reactions to reality that cause a problem--and the reactions do vary from person to person. It's their unpredictability to stress that is exactly the problem.

Even your husband's reaction of resistance to an order by a police officer could be construed by some officers as being obstructive and therefore, potentially harmful. In some states and in some instances, he would be arrested, regardless of his designation.

Hi laglen--Thank you for getting my point--and it's still my point, regardless.

Holly I think those are all legitimate concerns. I studied psychology (Iknow, who hasnt?) and I agree that everybody is different. But if you take one issue, you have to look at all. I think you responded respectfully and I hope that Spall gets it.

I do get it you guys...I've been getting it for years. The severe PTSD *episodes*, where the sufferer is transported back to the scene of the primary stressor, are rare and should not be misconstrued to include everyone who suffers from this disorder, which is very treatable. My point, holly, is that with the designation a trained law enforcement officer would know that he needs to treat my husband in a different manner...in a calmer and less combative manner. It's all about attitude and, yes, law enforcement routinely adjust their attitudes depending on who they are dealing with. Officers talk nicer to me...and they did to my late father-in-law who was in his 80's...than they do to males in general.

spall, how often in a situation that would warrant their observation and understanding would they see his id BEFORE things go bad?

Hi again, spalladino,

Again, I believe you are reading more into what I wrote than I actually said. I purposely stated that all persons with PTSD are NOT the same. So, naturally not all are going to have flashbacks to the original trauma.

However, some do--and I believe that it's not in their control. I also believe that it is more of a problem for those who have recently suffered the trauma compared to someone like your husband who suffers from the traumatic aspects of a war that took place quite some time ago. That is not to say that it's any less debilitating, but he has had time to learn some coping skills.

Veterans of our more recent conflicts may still have recurring flashbacks for quite some time to come, unfortunately.

As for police officers treating people differently, I do think that's true. I also agree that they have a tendency to treat males, especially younger males, with a level of suspicion and hostility. After all, those younger males tend to be the majority of perpetrators of crimes in our country. But, there is no need for a special designation on a license to draw an officer's attention to the fact that they are male--it's already there for all the world to see.

laglen, the first encounter between law enforcement and a civillian in a traffic stop consists of "license and registration". This is when the officer has the opportunity to see the designation and to adjust his approach accordingly.

Holly, my comments to you largly stem from this statement that you made early on:
"How can a person suffering from PTSD make a logical, unemotional decision on this? It's asking a person who has been diagnosed with a severe mental illness to make a sane choice about their own welfare. They can't always project what the consequences of their choices are. Doesn't seem right to me."

You seem to believe that those who suffer from PTSD are incapable of making logical, unemotional decisions regarding their day to day lives and that they are unable to make sane choices regarding their own welfare. This is far from the truth. There are many levels of PTSD as well as co-conditions like depression that can go along with it. Flashbacks are also not all that common. My husband had one once and even during that event he had the wherewithal to call 911 for help. The EMS and police officers who came to his home arrived well informed of the situation and how best to handle him. He was treated with concern and kindness and transported to the hospital without incident. My main point about having the designation on a driver's license is that it gives law enforcement a necessary tool that they would not normally have otherwise.

You are free to disagree with me about police officers treating people differently but I've experienced that difference many times since I was first stopped for speeding at the age of 17 and got out of the ticket by crying and telling the officer that my father would kill me. Later on I became the nice lady with too much on her plate. Now that I'm older the "babbling idiot" works well...where I immediately confess and then go on and on about how I was running this errand and that and not paying attention...until the officer's eyes roll back into his head and he lets me off with a warning. My late father-in-law actually hit a police car that was stopped at the light...knocked him through the intersection...and still he was treated with kindness and respect. Of course, the officer also told my husband that we might want to hide the keys since the old man's driving was becoming a problem. As you've stated, young males are already suspect and treated in a certian way. Our brave soldiers who have returned from war forever changed by this condition should be treated in the same manner.
BTW, just a FYI. PTSD does not get better over time as one developes coping skills. It actually gets worse with age which is why treatment is so essential.

Spall, Im sorry I thought you had said that your husband freezes at "can I see your ID?"

No, laglen...and by the way, sorry for the delay but we've been busy with V.A. appointments and were in West Palm Beach yesterday and today. My husband is actually very friendly and is extremely competent. Remember that we own a motorcycle shop plus he has an Ebay store so he's generally good at dealing with people. The problem with PTSD is the stressors. This is a common problem. If my husband is pulled over and the officer asks for his license, registration and proof of insurance, he's fine with that. He can be given a ticket and he will cooperate and sign it. It's only when the officer becomes unreasonable in my husband's opinion that a problem starts.

Case in point. We were almost here in Hooterville before we moved here...coming down for a vacation and my husband waved at a police car that we passed on the road. Turned out that this particular deputy was in a bad mood (or an azzhole) because he made a U-turn and pulled us over. We hadn't been speeding. After he had my husband's license & registration and had called it in, he returned to our vehicle and started giving him crap about not having proof of insurance. Well, we lived in Maryland at the time and you don't carry a little card around like you do down here. My husband told him this and his response was to "step out of the vehicle sir". Now, my husband had hair down to his waist at the time, in a pony tail and didn't look like your average Joe. My husband didn't appreciate the sudden change in the deputy's attitude so he refused to get out of the vehicle. Meanwhile, I saw what was happening, called his nephew real quick and asked him to call the Sheriff, who is his father-in-law. I told the deputy, who was obviously ticked off, to hang on for a second, that he should be getting a call over the radio and, fortunately, he did. My husband was angry, as I would have been, too, but the difference is that he would have taken it to the limit...all the way to a jail cell...because he wasn't being treated right and for no good reason. This is why I feel that law enforcement should be able to be aware when they are dealing with someone who has PTSD. They don't react like you and I...they can over-react but that doesn't make them dangerous.

Spall, I know this sounds crazy. But dont you think that officer was out of line anyway, regardless of your husband's ptsd? By the way, something happened here, I thought you might be interested in.. please check it out, I am bartending the funeral on sunday http://www.greeleytribune...

Yes, he was out of line from the very start. I'm assuming he thought my husband was being a smartazz when he waved, especially since we had out of state tags, or he was just in a bad mood.

That article was so sad. I'm familiar with the biker's poem that he had tacked on his front door. It speaks of how bikers are looked at with fear and suspicion when many of them have good hearts, with the story being told by one who had died in an accident. Studies have shown that PTSD becomes harder to deal with when you get older, especially if you're alone, and I think this man was very, very sad. Also, a lot of Vietnam vets believe that they will die in their 60's, which is a stressor in itself. My husband is 62 and mentions that statistic from time to time. This poor man had family who I'm sure loved him and are probably beating themselves up right now. I will say a prayer for him on Sunday.

Thank you. I met his sons today to make the arrangements, they are not doing too well. What really bothered me was that they told me I was the first person to actually help and treat them well. The funeral home has been rude and short, the DAs office wont call him back, even the honor guard (from my hall) says they wont work on Sundays. I felt so awful for them. I gave them the hall free (usually $800), I am volunteering the bartending (about $50) and I waived security ($150). Thats really all I can do but I do it willingly. I gave them my cell number and told them to call me with any questions and if there was anything I could do for them. Due to the circumstances people are not being very nice. I find that reprehensible. This man fought for OUR country, and has paid for it ever since. He has tried to live a quiet life and one night of awful circumstances has changed that....

I agree. I am really not big on conspiracy theories. BUT my biggest concern is BIG government.