"she can be as upset as she likes! But she can't claim to be traumatised - there was simply no immediate, credible threat to life, hers, or anyone elses - and yes, that is a simplistic view of "trauma" but it is a working definition that functions perfectly adequetey nine times out of ten"
What on earth are you on about? An immediate, credible threat to life is not necessary to define trauma.
I've been a psychotherapist for many years and I work with people who have trauma all the time. A lot of it is complex PTSD from childhood abuse or neglect, which is characterised by powerlessness and a (real or perceived) sense of entrapment.
People can be traumatised by all sorts of things. Freud described “trauma” as “any excitations from the outside which are powerful enough to break through the protective shield there is no longer any possibility of preventing the mental apparatus from being flooded with large amounts of stimulus which have broken in and binding of them.
In short, trauma is experienced when the nervous system is exposed to too much, too fast, too soon.
Read Giselle Genillard, Peter Levine, Gabor Mate, or Bessel van der Kolk.