babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » national news   » Soldiers slow to seek psychological help, study says

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Soldiers slow to seek psychological help, study says
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 15 February 2008 01:52 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Globe and Mail

quote:
Lead study author Deniz Fikretoglu said more than half of military members with a mental disorder do not seek treatment.

The main reasons include a belief that the condition is temporary as well as a distrust of military health services and social services.



From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463

posted 15 February 2008 12:18 PM      Profile for martin dufresne   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
How monstrous that the title of this story blames soldiers with PTSD! Definitely the official, victim-blaming story...
For a more realistic account of these issues, read the (27 so far) readers' comments - many of them ex-military, to get a better idea of how soldiers are broken - in training, on missions, after returning, on seeking help - and their career and employment chances sabotaged when they do seek help. Very moving terstimony, including that of Veterans' family members.
A quote from the dialogue:
quote:
(...)If the psychs want the soldiers to come to them they need to sign up and spend some time in the field (same as the padres do) so they can relate. Or, and here's a better one, our civilian government can stop sending its soldiers into harm's way for veiled concessions disguised as really corny ideology with substandard, aging equipment and little-to-no hope of a mission plan. You'd be amazed what a competent government can do for improving a soldier's psychological health. Mind you that last one's hypothetical. I've still yet to see one in Canada.

Thanks for posting this, Cueball.

[ 15 February 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]


From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
ChicagoLoopDweller
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14097

posted 15 February 2008 04:54 PM      Profile for ChicagoLoopDweller     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
How is this monstrous:

Soldiers slow to seek psychological help, study says

Based on the research it's a fact. I also question how this blames the soldiers.


From: Chicago | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463

posted 15 February 2008 05:08 PM      Profile for martin dufresne   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Have you read the testimony from returning soldiers, in the comments to this article? I doubt you could be saying this if you had because it details the many hurdles put in soldiers' way.
The Canadian Forces' attitude with regard to disabilities, esp. psychological, has long been denounced by veterans and their advocates.
The Canadian Airborne Brotherhood sums up the situation this way in their discussion of veterans' entitlements:
quote:
(...) Capt. Bruyea, however, is less optimistic that there will be any quick and satisfactory results. "Veterans are seen as nothing more than 'an alarming future liability scenario' by many senior bureaucrats," he said. "The result is that modern veterans, in many cases, have been forced to accept lower quality benefits than the civil servants who administer the veteran programs. Such insensitive attempts to delay benefits send the message that once our modern soldiers have placed their lives in harm's way, they are expendable and not worthy of remembrance." (...)

(Source)

From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Slumberjack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10108

posted 15 February 2008 05:29 PM      Profile for Slumberjack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The distrust of military medical personnel centers around the fact that the medical side is responsible to the chain of command. A report containing employment limitations emanating from a medical visit is made available to ones commanding officer. In the case of no visible physical impairment upon an individual, rumours of other possible issues surface, and within warrior societies, anything of the mind is still considered the greatest weakness. The patient/doctor confidentiality that is normal in a non-military context is skewered in the military setting, by rules laid down by the brass. It presents a significant barrier to those seeking help.

[ 15 February 2008: Message edited by: Slumberjack ]


From: An Intensive De-Indoctrination, But I'm Fine Now | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 15 February 2008 05:54 PM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I am not sure about these reports, they seem out of touch with the situation I am aware of.

However I may not be seeing the large problem.

Here is another news release with more detail.

Study suggests Canadian soldiers reluctant to get help for mental problems

I know of several members of 1RCR that are seeking help. These members include senior NCOs and junior officers from the ill fated 2006 mission.

I know a few people that have used the Operational Stress Injury Social Support (OSISS) program.

Junior and senior NCOs are now trained to provide help or give guidance to where to seek help.

I think the problem lies with the civil servants who administer the veteran programs. Part of the problem is getting results once you apply with a claim, it is my understanding that a majority of people have to apply two or three times before the receive compensation for their injuries.

The lower levels of civil servants appear to be helpful and understanding.

Slumberjack, you may have a different opinion, but these are just my views and experiences.

Note: I believe more could be done at all levels.


From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 15 February 2008 05:57 PM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Operational Stress Injury Social Support program.
From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Slumberjack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10108

posted 15 February 2008 06:08 PM      Profile for Slumberjack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Webgear:
I think the problem lies with the civil servants who administer the veteran programs.
Slumberjack, you may have a different opinion, but these are just my views and experiences.
Note: I believe more could be done at all levels.

This is not about seeking payment, its about seeking treatment. It's not veterans benefits we're talking about here, which comes out of a different department entirely, which may or may not become necessary well after any diagnosis is made. We're talking about the story relating to barriers faced by soldiers who seek treatment for problems associated with the things they do. Nothing to do with civilians at all.


From: An Intensive De-Indoctrination, But I'm Fine Now | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 15 February 2008 06:25 PM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I believe both seeking treatment and compensation are linked, in my view however this could be another discussion in a different thread.

I think more soldiers are seeking treatment than what is reported. There is no longer a view within the chain of command that if you are having trouble you are weak.

Most commanders are aware if the person does not get the help he/she needs in a timely and effective manner, she/he will likely become a larger problem down the road. A majority of leaders realize not acting immediately with a soldier seeking help, will result with a soldier being lost most likely forever.


From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Slumberjack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10108

posted 15 February 2008 06:35 PM      Profile for Slumberjack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Webgear:
I believe both seeking treatment and compensation are linked, in my view however this could be another discussion in a different thread. I think more soldiers are seeking treatment than what is reported. There is no longer a view within the chain of command that if you are having trouble you are weak.
Most commanders are aware if the person does not get the help he/she needs in a timely and effective manner, she/he will likely become a larger problem down the road. A majority of leaders realize not acting immediately with a soldier seeking help, will result with a soldier being lost most likely forever.

Sounds like public affairs talking points, cue card material, sanitized for public consumption.


From: An Intensive De-Indoctrination, But I'm Fine Now | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463

posted 15 February 2008 07:00 PM      Profile for martin dufresne   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Capt. Bruyea, from the Canadian Airborne Brotherhood, quoted above:
quote:
..."Veterans are seen as nothing more than 'an alarming future liability scenario' by many senior bureaucrats," he said.

"Webgear":
quote:
...Most commanders are aware if the person does not get the help he/she needs in a timely and effective manner, she/he will likely become a larger problem down the road.

At least, Capt. Bruyea sees this attitude as problematic... and signs his name to his statements.

From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 15 February 2008 07:02 PM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You think that is worthy of being rated as public affairs talking points. Perhaps I should apply for a political party and become a communications officer, the NDP is looking for one.

Regional and Specialty Media Officer

What is your experience with the soldiers seeking help?


From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 15 February 2008 07:14 PM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by martin dufresne:

At least, Capt. Bruyea sees this attitude as problematic... and signs his name to his statements.

There are a few people here that know my real name.

I have the right to remain anonymous just like everyone else.


From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Slumberjack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10108

posted 15 February 2008 07:39 PM      Profile for Slumberjack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Webgear:
You think that is worthy of being rated as public affairs talking points. Perhaps I should apply for a political party and become a communications officer, the NDP is looking for one.Regional and Specialty Media Officer
What is your experience with the soldiers seeking help?

Lack of PTSD Follow-Up

Ombudsman

Parliamentary Report

Just a few links among literally thousands that make reference to problems, both past and present, in how the organization deals with PTSD.

As for my own experience regarding soldiers with these kind of issues, the politically correct messages that suffice to assure the public, and the internal focus on providing resources to deal with the problem, including avenues to seek assistance, don't always make it down to the section level, and when it does, it comes with jokes.


From: An Intensive De-Indoctrination, But I'm Fine Now | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 15 February 2008 07:50 PM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Slumberjack

I think we have different opinions and experiences. Maybe I have had good leadership in my career compared to you.

I am not in disagreement with you, as I stated earlier in the thread, there is more that could be done.

I respect your view. I do not think I can add more to this topic, therefore I will bow out for now.


From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Slumberjack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10108

posted 15 February 2008 07:56 PM      Profile for Slumberjack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by martin dufresne:
Capt. Bruyea, from the Canadian Airborne Brotherhood, quoted above:

At least, Capt. Bruyea sees this attitude as problematic... and signs his name to his statements.

Oh, and what, anyone who posts anonymous is full of it?


From: An Intensive De-Indoctrination, But I'm Fine Now | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Slumberjack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10108

posted 15 February 2008 08:02 PM      Profile for Slumberjack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Webgear:
Maybe I have had good leadership in my career compared to you. I am not in disagreement with you, as I stated earlier in the thread, there is more that could be done. I respect your view. I do not think I can add more to this topic, therefore I will bow out for now.

Perhaps, however it's not my view vs yours that's pertinent, it's the available sources that tell two different stories as well. And I'd urge you not to run off quite yet to become the PR guy for the NDP.


From: An Intensive De-Indoctrination, But I'm Fine Now | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463

posted 15 February 2008 08:20 PM      Profile for martin dufresne   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
...and what, anyone who posts anonymous is full of it?
No, he is just anyone.

[ 15 February 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]


From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 16 February 2008 05:12 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Martin, your attacks on webgear in this thread and another one are out of line. He has the right to post anonymously. If you have a problem with that, too bad. Find another forum where everyone is forced to use their real names if you don't like it.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
rural - Francesca
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14858

posted 16 February 2008 05:35 AM      Profile for rural - Francesca   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Troubled soldier gets 30 days in jail

quote:
Turcotte had been living in Elk Lake, in Northern Ontario. He turned himself in to Owen Sound police, a police news release said Feb. 5.

Assistant Crown attorney Michael Martin told Justice Julia Morneau a Veterans Affairs staff member said: “This is the most serious post-traumatic stress case that she has seen.”

The judge told Turcotte she hopes he “comes to terms” with counselling but also accepted defence and Crown submissions that jail was warranted for his breaches of court orders. Justice Morneau made attendance at a new combat soldier counselling clinic in London the “highest recommendation of this court.”

That’s the Operational Stress Injury Clinic at Parkwood Hospital. Funded by Veterans Affairs Canada, it cares for veterans and members of the Canadian Forces diagnosed with PTSD, anxiety, depression or addiction resulting from military service.

Justice Morneau stressed she didn’t want Turcotte’s care to “fall through the cracks” because there has already been some delay in discovering his illness, she said.

Martin said a Veterans Affairs counsellor told him there was a “disconnect” in communication with Turcotte and that only recently the federal department became aware of Turcotte’s difficulties. Martin said Veterans Affairs moved swiftly once it learned about Turcotte.

For the past five or six years, Turcotte has suffered symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder, Martin said. But for reasons that were not made clear, Turcotte’s disability went unnoticed.

Turcotte served in high-stress roles in Rwanda and Afghanistan, though his specific job was not described in court. He was discharged with a pension.



From: the backyard | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463

posted 16 February 2008 07:17 AM      Profile for martin dufresne   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Of course, "Webgear" has the right to post anonymously. But isn't it relevant to point out the significance of such an anonymous defense of the Canadian Forces PR line vs. the signed statements of a member of the CF that criticize that attitude?
From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 16 February 2008 08:20 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
No. It's not. People are allowed to post anonymously on babble. People are not allowed to attack fellow babblers based on their decision to post anonymously. Period.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 16 February 2008 08:24 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by martin dufresne:
Of course, "Webgear" has the right to post anonymously. But isn't it relevant to point out the significance of such an anonymous defense of the Canadian Forces PR line vs. the signed statements of a member of the CF that criticize that attitude?

I believe Webgear has been quoted officially on some subjects, and if that is the case, that is his job. This is not his job, per se. It would be deeply problematic for him to be making statements that could be presumed to emanate from an officer of the armed forces on random web sites.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 16 February 2008 09:00 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by martin dufresne:
Of course, "Webgear" has the right to post anonymously. But isn't it relevant to point out the significance of such an anonymous defense of the Canadian Forces PR line vs. the signed statements of a member of the CF that criticize that attitude?
You obviously acknowledge the right to post anonymously. Your point seems to be that anything anyone here says under a pseudonym is of less merit than something said by someone else, over their real name.

I reject that idea categorically.

ETA: In fact, in my experience at babble, some of the biggest nonsense comes from posters who appear to be using "real" names. How anyone can tell for sure, I don't know.

[ 16 February 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463

posted 16 February 2008 09:37 AM      Profile for martin dufresne   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I take issue with M.Spector's summation for two reasons.
1) He completely eludes the context here, which I reiterated in my explanation. This context is that of the Canadian Forces' responsibility to psychologically wounded soldiers and whether the organization does or doesn't live up to that responsibility. In that context, I do find it significant that someone - a soldier - sign his name to his account of the problem and that someone else - possibly a public servant - doesn't, to posts that seem to reflect and validate the CF reluctance to acknowledge the extent of this problem.
In my opinion, taking a purely formal aproach to the issue - signatures don't matter and can't be allowed to - risks dismissing the relevance of people taking stands for or against current CF performance in that regard. This is not just about "anyone"'s opinion on the matter.
2) M.Spector seems to accept as a given some kind of total relativism of signatures posted on the Internet. I don't. When one reads columns on Rabble, for instance, it does matter that a piece is signed, and by this or that columnist, because one knows these people's record and one can correlate what they say now to what they have said and done before. If someone does sign his or her name to a forum posting, I feel that this gives this person's statement a limited but real - and desirable - modicum of accountability, as does signing a letter to an MP, for instance.
Yes, personal signatures can be faked. They can also, to an extent, be checked. More to the point, signing is better IMO than settling, as a matter of principle, for disembodied statements, attitudes really, floating about, often making up in cynicism what they sacrifice in groundedness. This, at least, has been my general experience in comparing owned to anonymous statements.
I, personnally, resist any mandatory excision of the meaning of signing one's name to a political position. Although I do not challenge the possibility of posting anonymously, or of changing pseudonyms whenever convenient (as some do), I do want to be able to point out the inherent limitations of this system, especially on key human issues where it becomes important to (try to) know who is speaking and to stand up and be counted.
(Sorry if this sounds soap-boxy. I understand the counter-argument, but am not swayed so far.)

[ 16 February 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]


From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Loretta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 222

posted 16 February 2008 09:56 AM      Profile for Loretta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
As a former member of the CF and one who has lived the "no life like it" lifestyle for most of my life, I have had concerns about this issue since 1992ish when the regiment at the base I was living at was in readiness-exercises to deploy to the former Yugoslavia.

A number of issues have been addressed in this are but there are significant ones that remain. I would say the main one is fear of losing one's job, their identity and their social milieu. Many members of the military and their families depend on their paycheque for survival and, like most of us, worry about any threat to that. And, like most of us, a medical threat can change all of that in a short period of time.

I can't speak for the rest of you but my household has had a brief experience of living on vastly reduced means due to an injury and it was very difficult. That was almost 3 years ago and its repercussions are still being felt in our house.

I'm guessing that many military members who may need help with PTSD and the like are justifiably fearful of losing their job and being discharged, which is what happens if the person's therapy and support doesn't lead to recovery. Even with a pension, risking loss of income, loss of identity and loss of one's community within the military milieu are difficult decisions to make -- many won't put all of that at risk willingly.

The process is not safe for those people, regardless of how much of it is offered. While it may be true that a military commander may realize that it's not in the interests of their unit to have people suffering from PTSD engaging in whatever the current mission is, that's because it's in the interests of the mission (or unit, or the CF in general) and not because the well-being of the particular soldier in question is valued (generally speaking).

I've seen what the military doctors and their ilk do when faced with the decision between an individual's well-being and the overall interests of the CF and know that their care of the individual ends where the interests of the CF supersede that.

No wonder "soldiers [are] slow to seek psychological help".

[ 16 February 2008: Message edited by: Loretta ]


From: The West Kootenays of BC | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 16 February 2008 12:59 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by martin dufresne:
In my opinion, taking a purely formal aproach to the issue - signatures don't matter and can't be allowed to - risks dismissing the relevance of people taking stands for or against current CF performance in that regard. This is not just about "anyone"'s opinion on the matter.
I don't share your belief that the value of an opinion depends on who is presumed to be uttering it. I have said many times before that I don't believe in "credentials" (especially when they can be faked so easily on the internet) and that wisdom is wisdom and bullshit is bullshit, no matter who posts it.
quote:
M.Spector seems to accept as a given some kind of total relativism of signatures posted on the Internet. I don't.
On the contrary, it is you who are the "relativist" because you would accord more credibility or weight to an opinion based on the signature that goes with it. I wouldn't. Everybody on the web is a "someone", and not just what you contemptuously call "anyone".

Some people have no alternative but to use pseudonyms in a public meduim where political ideas are frankly and freely discussed, and it is wrong for you to cast aspersions on those who (you assume) are not using their "real" names. As Michelle has pointed out, it's also contrary to babble policy to make such distinctions. We do not have two classes of posters on babble - one more credible than the other.

Your own opinions, for example, are not rendered one jot more credible by your apparent use of a "real" name on babble. I have no way of knowing whether that is your "real" name or not, and frankly I don't care; it would make no difference to the degree of respect that I accord to your opinions.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463

posted 16 February 2008 01:33 PM      Profile for martin dufresne   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
M.Spector, I am sorry to see you call me "contemptuous". You, not I, are the one who used the word "anyone". I merely referred you back to it when I rejected your straw man. (see above, 15 Feb, 8:20 pm)

Eluding any attempt to ascertain a statement's truth value (whether it is owned or not being just one criterion) is, I believe, relativism. You may differ, based on a different definition - there are many. ;-)

I do not need to raise again this issue of owning one's speech and will not.

I do not believe it is to "attack" someone to try and assess the truth value of his or her statements. (Especially when that someone remains anonymous.)

I understand it is personal attacks that are off limits, and I don't see the mere pointing out of anonymity as that, when weighing opposite statements from speakers claiming intimate knowledge of an issue.

I would be encouraging thread drift by going into a more detailed analysis of the merits and drawbacks of anonymity in political discussion/arbitration of entitlements, but I think it deserves a more attentive treatment than the above.


From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 16 February 2008 01:49 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Loretta:
As a former member of the CF and one who has lived the "no life like it" lifestyle for most of my life, I have had concerns about this issue since 1992ish when the regiment at the base I was living at was in readiness-exercises to deploy to the former Yugoslavia.

A number of issues have been addressed in this are but there are significant ones that remain. I would say the main one is fear of losing one's job, their identity and their social milieu. Many members of the military and their families depend on their paycheque for survival and, like most of us, worry about any threat to that. And, like most of us, a medical threat can change all of that in a short period of time.

I can't speak for the rest of you but my household has had a brief experience of living on vastly reduced means due to an injury and it was very difficult. That was almost 3 years ago and its repercussions are still being felt in our house.

I'm guessing that many military members who may need help with PTSD and the like are justifiably fearful of losing their job and being discharged, which is what happens if the person's therapy and support doesn't lead to recovery. Even with a pension, risking loss of income, loss of identity and loss of one's community within the military milieu are difficult decisions to make -- many won't put all of that at risk willingly.

The process is not safe for those people, regardless of how much of it is offered. While it may be true that a military commander may realize that it's not in the interests of their unit to have people suffering from PTSD engaging in whatever the current mission is, that's because it's in the interests of the mission (or unit, or the CF in general) and not because the well-being of the particular soldier in question is valued (generally speaking).

I've seen what the military doctors and their ilk do when faced with the decision between an individual's well-being and the overall interests of the CF and know that their care of the individual ends where the interests of the CF supersede that.

No wonder "soldiers [are] slow to seek psychological help".

[ 16 February 2008: Message edited by: Loretta ]


Great post! This thread needs more of these insightful and intelligent first hand accounts.

[ 16 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 16 February 2008 08:01 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by martin dufresne:
You, not I, are the one who used the word "anyone". I merely referred you back to it when I rejected your straw man.
But I didn't use that word contemptuously. You did. You said, "This is not just about 'anyone''s opinion on the matter," thereby dismissing the opinions of those who prefer to remain anonymous.
quote:
I do not believe it is to "attack" someone to try and assess the truth value of his or her statements. (Especially when that someone remains anonymous.)
Your "especially" is particularly telling. It illustrates your dismissive attitude towards babblers who choose anonymity.
quote:
I understand it is personal attacks that are off limits, and I don't see the mere pointing out of anonymity as that, when weighing opposite statements from speakers claiming intimate knowledge of an issue.
As you have been told twice by Michelle, and now twice by me, the "mere pointing out of anonymity", in order to cast aspersions on fellow babblers, is not acceptable in this forum. Lay off.

[ 16 February 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca