[PedOncoDoc]

Originally Posted by Trapper John

Personally, I don't like introducing the term "cure" into a discussion concerning a "psychological" disorder where there is no underlying pathology. The term "cure" implies that there is some pharmaceutical intervention that either exists or could be discovered and developed. In the absence of underlying pathology (abnormal physiology) this is not an option.

PTSD and other psychological disorders can only be managed with competent therapy, although pharmaceutical intervention (e.g. anti-depressants) can be useful in symptomatic treatment during the acute stages to help the patient cope. The long-term outcome depends on the effectiveness of counseling and the patient's willingness and ability to do the work required.

If managed properly, over time, the symptoms disappear or significantly lessen to the point that the psychological abnormality is no longer debilitating. This I would call a remission or a "functional cure".

However, certain triggers can induce relapses from time-to-time. If the patient was properly counseled and is managing the condition, the response to these triggering events can be modulated when they occur, even to the point that no outward signs of recurrence are detectable.

Just my 2-cents.

I would respectfully disagree and state that "cure" does not require pharmaceutical intervention, "cure" does imply that some intervention has been provdied, however (encouraging a patient with mild vitamin D deficiency to spend more time in the sun, for example). . "Cured" means that a pathologic process that was present is no no longer present and has been gone for a sufficient amount of time to state that recurrence is no more likely than spontaneously developing the patholog process anew.

I endorse your use of remission however.