Moving Moral Injury Into the Future With Functional Contextualism: A Response to Nash's “Unpacking Two Models for Understanding Moral Injury” (2019)

In his commentary on the Journal of Traumatic Stress special issue on moral injury (Vol. 32, Issue 3), Nash (2019) critiques both Farnsworth's (2019) descriptive–prescriptive framework for differentiating posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) from moral injury and Farnsworth, Drescher, Evans, and Walser's (2017) functional contextual definition of moral injury and related concepts. To make his arguments, Nash contrasts these two frameworks with the Navy and Marine Corps Combat Operational Stress Control (COSC) model wherein moral stressors are presumed to cause literal damage to intrapsychic structures. Unfortunately, in drawing his comparisons, Nash makes several misstatements that we feel are important to clarify. We respond to Nash's commentary by first identifying the proper sources for the critiqued frameworks and correctly locate Farnsworth et al.’s functional contextual definition of moral injury within the domain of third‐wave cognitive behavioral therapies. We go on to compare and contrast the respective origins of the COSC and functional contextual models, noting important differences in their intended purposes. Next, we defend our model against Nash's critiques by highlighting how a functional contextual approach to moral injury (a) links with evolutionary science, (b) captures multiple levels of analysis, (c) is parsimonious, (d) serves diverse populations, (e) directly informs interventions, (f) promotes moral humility, and (g) decreases stigma while preserving client autonomy. In our conclusion, we recognize the value of the COSC model for its intended purposes while also encouraging deep and respectful dialogue among researchers and clinicians regarding the proposed benefits of the functional contextual model of moral injury.