How can this be?
Mon Aug 20, 2007 10:51 pm
So much for supporting our troops...
Treating the trauma of war – fairly,
Compliments of the Christian Science Monitor
By Judith SchwartzMon Aug 20, 4:00 AM ET
The high incidence of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among soldiers returning from Iraq is one of the many "inconvenient truths" of this war. Inconvenient largely because it is costly: The most effective and humane means of treating PTSD are time-intensive and long-term.
The military, however, has changed the terms and given many thousands of enlisted men and women a new diagnosis: "personality disorder." While the government would be obliged to care for veterans suffering from combat-related trauma, a personality disorder – defined as an ingrained, maladaptive way of orienting oneself to the world – predates a soldier's tour of duty (read: preexisting condition). This absolves Uncle Sam of any responsibility for the person's mental suffering.
The new diagnostic label sends the message: This suffering is your fault, not a result of the war. On one level, it's hard not to see this as another example of the government falling short on its care for Iraq war veterans. Yet there's another, more insidious, bit of sophistry at work. The implication is that a healthy person would be resistant to the psychological pressures of war. Someone who succumbs to the flashbacks, panic, and anger that haunt many former soldiers must have something inherently wrong with him. It's the psychological side of warrior macho: If you're tough, you can take it. Of course, we know this is not true. Wars forever change the lives of those who fight them and can leave deep scars.
The switch in terms from trauma to hysteria (during World War I) or PTSD to personality disorder (today) is far from trivial. Rather, the new labels allow the government and society at large to do two things: 1) attribute symptoms after serving to individual psycho-pathology; and 2) disown the problem of the former soldiers' suffering. We needn't question the system that sends young people to war – merely the stability of those who bear the emotional brunt of battle.
Politicians have a vested interest in sidestepping the high price soldiers pay for their service. But we know better, and at the very least owe them appropriate medical and psychological care and the acknowledgment of their wounds.
Better screening at the enlistment and training stages is needed, both to forestall retroactive diagnoses and to identify soldiers with personality disorders that could interfere with their duties. (This debate has arisen after recruitment standards have been lowered with regard to mental health and criminal records to fill quotas.)
Better preparation prior to deployment would also help. The National Guard has seen higher rates of PTSD than the Marines. This may suggest that the more extensive training specific to combat received by marines helps them tolerate potentially traumatic situations.
Another important development would be a cultural shift within the military that both recognizes and destigmatizes the need for psychiatric care. This way soldiers and veterans would not be afraid to seek help in a timely manner – or be punished for having psychological complaints.
Finally, we as a nation need to recognize that our actions have consequences for those who assert them – and to remind our leaders before there's any commitment of troops.
Treating the trauma of war – fairly,
Compliments of the Christian Science Monitor
By Judith SchwartzMon Aug 20, 4:00 AM ET
The high incidence of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among soldiers returning from Iraq is one of the many "inconvenient truths" of this war. Inconvenient largely because it is costly: The most effective and humane means of treating PTSD are time-intensive and long-term.
The military, however, has changed the terms and given many thousands of enlisted men and women a new diagnosis: "personality disorder." While the government would be obliged to care for veterans suffering from combat-related trauma, a personality disorder – defined as an ingrained, maladaptive way of orienting oneself to the world – predates a soldier's tour of duty (read: preexisting condition). This absolves Uncle Sam of any responsibility for the person's mental suffering.
The new diagnostic label sends the message: This suffering is your fault, not a result of the war. On one level, it's hard not to see this as another example of the government falling short on its care for Iraq war veterans. Yet there's another, more insidious, bit of sophistry at work. The implication is that a healthy person would be resistant to the psychological pressures of war. Someone who succumbs to the flashbacks, panic, and anger that haunt many former soldiers must have something inherently wrong with him. It's the psychological side of warrior macho: If you're tough, you can take it. Of course, we know this is not true. Wars forever change the lives of those who fight them and can leave deep scars.
The switch in terms from trauma to hysteria (during World War I) or PTSD to personality disorder (today) is far from trivial. Rather, the new labels allow the government and society at large to do two things: 1) attribute symptoms after serving to individual psycho-pathology; and 2) disown the problem of the former soldiers' suffering. We needn't question the system that sends young people to war – merely the stability of those who bear the emotional brunt of battle.
Politicians have a vested interest in sidestepping the high price soldiers pay for their service. But we know better, and at the very least owe them appropriate medical and psychological care and the acknowledgment of their wounds.
Better screening at the enlistment and training stages is needed, both to forestall retroactive diagnoses and to identify soldiers with personality disorders that could interfere with their duties. (This debate has arisen after recruitment standards have been lowered with regard to mental health and criminal records to fill quotas.)
Better preparation prior to deployment would also help. The National Guard has seen higher rates of PTSD than the Marines. This may suggest that the more extensive training specific to combat received by marines helps them tolerate potentially traumatic situations.
Another important development would be a cultural shift within the military that both recognizes and destigmatizes the need for psychiatric care. This way soldiers and veterans would not be afraid to seek help in a timely manner – or be punished for having psychological complaints.
Finally, we as a nation need to recognize that our actions have consequences for those who assert them – and to remind our leaders before there's any commitment of troops.
Tue Aug 21, 2007 8:33 am
Deleted
Last edited by Former Member on Wed Aug 29, 2007 7:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Tue Aug 21, 2007 11:38 am
Disgusting. 
I read that the suicide rate among troops out in the field has increased as well.
I read that the suicide rate among troops out in the field has increased as well.
Tue Aug 21, 2007 12:20 pm
This doesn't surprise me a bit. The military has a history of hanging people out to dry. I was forced out of the US Navy once the decided a medical issue was a liability for them.
Tue Aug 21, 2007 4:26 pm
of course you were. It's the most common way out--besides simply refusing to reenlist as I did. I have a wound through my right wrist which ended my being a sniper. I have a wound in my left thigh which still cases me pain and makes me limp at times. And I have shrapnel embedded in my butt. I got a 25% disability for all that. Gues what you need in order to recieve benefits? 30%. Over 60% of soldiers applying for benefits get 25%. Why? It's how they avoid paying if they don't have to. And if it turns out to be serious they can up the disability and claim your condition degraded.
personality disorder my ass. is someone getting organized? I'll throw in with them if so...
personality disorder my ass. is someone getting organized? I'll throw in with them if so...
Tue Aug 21, 2007 7:23 pm
Deleted