First, where do you think we draw the line between what we lable and do not lable?
Honestly? I am of the personal belief that you cannot label everything that could theoretically be a trigger. As I said, anything is a trigger. It could be as heavy as a rape depiction or allusion to something as simple and light as a clown. A good example of this is 9/11. There is evidence of PTSD among people who watched the events of that day unfold in person and on television. They can be triggered by something falling from the sky, the sound of a plane, or the mere mention of the date.
The trigger here, as Liana puts forth, is the thing that causes a stress reaction of reliving the event. That stress reaction is programmed to the response of that day. So anything that person associates with that day and that experience becomes the trigger.
Can we really alert everyone to every trigger? No.
Should we? In my opinion, no. We should encourage people to be mindful of their triggers and, as they become more generalized and cause more distress in life, encourage treatment to minimize those triggers. Encouraging avoidance through a litany of warnings only reinforces (read: encourages, makes stronger) that stress reaction and sets it in stone. Eventually, that reaction could become just part of everyday functioning.
Second question, could one make the argument that there is a misunderstanding in the effort to prevent the reexperiencing of a trauma?
Human beings have this natural reaction to stressful events. Professionally and biologically, it's the sympathetic nervous system. Commonly, it is known as fight or flight. When we have a fight or flight reaction, resolution of that promotes the neurological chemicals to be sent. When stressed, your body sends chemicals to dull the pain. When resolved, you get the chemical that makes you feel somewhat happy and resolved as you've evaded trouble.
There certainly is a misunderstanding, but it's in the human condition. People simply want to avoid uncomfortable things. When you add in the cultural component--America's reluctance to deal with emotional and psychological pain--you get a really staunch sense of trauma avoidance. If someone is raped, the usual response is to rush to their aid and help them, but sometimes that is harmful to recovery as a rape victim may wish to have people far away.
With PTSD, we tend to want to avoid that trauma experience. It makes people uncomfortable. For example, a prisoner may develop PTSD from seeing murders in a prison. Does the average populace want to sit and discuss the gruesome disemboweling of another human being as a necessity of survival?
Does a "normal person" want to hear the grueling detail of slaughtering people in war? How about watching your friends and near family being destroyed by an IED? No, they typically want to mask it to paint over the discomfort of the listener and the reliving of trauma of the traumatized.
Digressing a tad, there is also the assumption of the trauma. As you said, someone may assume a combat veteran has trauma because they saw death and destruction. This may not be the case. They actually may have survived an IED with no deaths. This causes them to become hypervigilant and wary of others.
What would you say of the value of basic comunication and research in the context of gaming and entertainment consumption? Gamers - for the most part, I would say - have family, friends, co-workers, internet access. If a person has suffered a trauma, and continues to suffer the psychological affects of that trauma in real and practical ways - would that person not feel compelled to inquire about this game, or that movie from someone they trust and who is aware of the condition and information relevant to it? In your experience as a clinician, how many subjects are you aware of that had played a game, or seen a movie relevant to their condition that had not been vetted to be reasonably free of elements that would innitiate a reexperience of their trauma? Could it not even be healthy for a subject to approach entertainment consumption and how it relates to their trauma in such a way?
Very few. The trauma experience tends to be based upon something that was present when the trauma happened. Additionally, the DSM-5 actually excludes digital traumas. You cannot develop PTSD from Twitter, video games, etc based on the DSM-5. You have to experience it directly or have someone close to you experience it. However, I cannot say it does not happen. I can just say that it's rather rare in my experience.
I've also yet to have any woman say video games are the cause of their problems. Mostly women seek mental health services due to the stigma of weakness associated for men. I work primarily with the poor, and I've yet to have any woman tell me that video games are the cause of their problems.
