Is and Ought: Descriptive and Prescriptive Cognitions in Military-Related Moral Injury.

Abstract

Debate exists regarding the most appropriate way to address moral injuries that stem from involvement in war and other military conflicts. In recent years, some researchers have suggested that existing treatments for trauma may be inadequate to address moral injury and have thus proposed novel interventions to help mitigate these concerns. In response, advocates of more traditional approaches have argued that standard trauma interventions are generally sufficient for moral injury, and investment in new interventions may be premature. This conceptual article draws from research findings and current theories of moral injury to demonstrate that there is merit on both sides of this debate, and further clarifying the types of cognitions involved in moral injury can guide effective treatment planning. In particular, the most recent diagnostic criteria for posttraumatic stress disorder is used to distinguish the objectively falsifiable descriptive cognitions often associated with trauma from the subjectively determined prescriptive cognitions that characterize moral injury. Scenarios from war zone deployments have been used to highlight the relevance of this distinction for moral injury, and a general treatment framework that shows how existing and novel interventions may complement one another is presented. Research suggestions for assessing descriptive and prescriptive cognitions in moral injury and empirically validating this treatment framework are discussed.