Soldiers slow to seek psychological help, study says

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 ]

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." (...)

---

([url=http://cdnabbrotherhood.ca/military-news/article-809.html]Source[/url])

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.

[url=http://news.sympatico.msn.ca/National/ContentPosting.htm?newsitemid=4182... suggests Canadian soldiers reluctant to get help for mental problems[/url]

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.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Webgear:
[b] 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.[/b]

---

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.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Webgear:
[b]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.[/b]

---

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

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.

[img]tongue.gif" border="0[/img]

[url=http://www.ndp.ca/page/6191]Regional and Specialty Media Officer [/url]

What is your experience with the soldiers seeking help?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Webgear:
[b]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.[url=http://www.ndp.ca/page/6191]Regional and Specialty Media Officer [/url]
What is your experience with the soldiers seeking help?[/b]

---

[url=http://dailygleaner.canadaeast.com/search/article/193132]Lack of PTSD Follow-Up[/url]

[url=http://www.ombudsman.forces.gc.ca/mr-sm/nr-cp/2002/0502-eng.asp]Ombudsma...

[url=http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/prb0720-e.htm]Parliame... Report[/url]

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.

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
[b]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.[/b]

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

No, he is just anyone.

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

[url=http://www.owensoundsuntimes.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=904985&auth=Scott... soldier gets 30 days in jail[/url]

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.

---

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.

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
[b]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?[/b]

---

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 ]

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 ]

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.