# Veteran commits suicide in front of Dayton VA center



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 19, 2010)

Things like this shouldn't be happening.....

http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/veteran-commits-suicide-in-front-of-dayton-va-center-656012.html



> Jesse Charles Huff walked up to the Veterans Affairs Departments     Medical Center on Friday morning wearing U.S. Army fatigues and  battling    pain from his Iraq war wounds and a recent bout with depression.   The 27-year-old Dayton man had entered the centers emergency room about  1    a.m. Friday and requested some sort of treatment. But Huff did not get  that    treatment, police said, and about 5:45 a.m. he reappeared at the  centers    entrance, put a military-style rifle to his head and twice pulled the    trigger.
> Huff fell near the foot of a Civil War statue, his blood covering  portions of    the front steps.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Apr 20, 2010)

No they shouldn't. People should be able to get medical treatment if they really need to, regardless of whether their private insurer ****s them over or if they have no coverage because they can't afford it, because it is unacceptable to just let people die if they are not rich enough to pony up the money for treatments.

Oh... wait a minute...
No they should not get coverage, right? Because it's all about choice and you don't want to pay for some loser who doesn't want to work and support himself. At least that was the message that you posted yesterday.

Hmm...
This is getting complicated.
Perhaps you could set up a system where socialized health care is evil and un American on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, but not on the other days? And then the ones who you think deserve it could be slotted in on those days while the rest can have the 'loser' days.


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 20, 2010)

VETS should receive any treatment they need, no one will say different I am sure

that has nothing to do with some career minimum wage job holder that i simply lacks ambitiont o get a better job with benefits.

bruno, your post was kind of out of line


----------



## OnlyAnEgg (Apr 20, 2010)

I don't know anything, really, about this guy.  He may have had pre-existing mental issues prior to his term of service.  He may have been a person genuinely in need of valid treatment.  He may have been a psycho-poser.  Who knows?  Not the paper.  To off yourself to make a statement, as was implied, certainly suggests a deeply troubled mind.

It's certainly sad that something like this happened; but, there's not enough info to take a legitimate stand.

Also, I don't believe being a vet automatically elevates someone to a rarified position in society.  As was previously stated, who we are is based on choice.  I've known my share of vets that have chosen a low-life as well as knowing many who chose to do the best they could with what they had.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 20, 2010)

Bruno, you're purposefully blurring the lines here. Have an issue with my positions on choice, take the debate up there, not here.

A vet isn't some loser who chooses to be unemployed. He chose to serve the nation, one of the highest of callings in my opinion, and the nation should take care of those who serve it. That's not "socialized" any more than free coffee in the workplace is.

The person in question here isn't some guy who flew a desk in Greece during peacetime, he was someone who saw action, was wounded, and was actively seeking help. Help which he didn't get.

This problem is growing.



> *The suicide rate among 18- to 29-year-old men who have left the military*  has    gone up significantly, the government said in January.
> The rate for those veterans *rose 26 percent from 2005 to 2007*, according  to    data released by the Department of Veterans Affairs.
> The military community also has struggled with an increase in suicides,  with    the Army seeing a *record number* last year. Last May, Wright-Patterson  Air    Force Base focused on suicide recognition and prevention after four  apparent    suicides involving base personnel within six months.



I will argue that, yes, these men and women are making these sad choices on their own. My question is, why? More to the point, what can we do for them so that they see that death isn't their only option?


----------



## Bruno@MT (Apr 20, 2010)

Sorry why should vets specifically get free healthcare?
why not police officers and firefighters? After all, they also put their lives on the line on a daily basis to protect society?
How about national guard personnel? Or the astronauts?
How about CIA operatives, the FBI, NSA, and all the others who watch out for all American citizens?

Yes my words could be considered offensive. I readily admit.
I could counter that it is equally offensive that it is considered appropriate that we should pick and choose people who should get free health care based on whether you agree with what they did at a certain point in their life. Yes the vet put his life on the line. It was his job. He chose to do so. Just like the ER ambulance crew, SWAT guys, and other people who could get killed as a consequence of doing their job.

How about recognizing that most people just do their job and try to make things better? You don't know how this particular vet lived his life up until his death, any more than you do know the life story of any of the others who take their own life after a life of misery and denial. Yet without knowing more, you are content to label one a loser and another a hero who deserves looking after.

Circumstances are never ever clear cut. Looking around me at people who take advantage of our national healthcare system, the vast majority are just people who had no choice in their circumstances. They got handed a ****** deal and have to cope. Sure there are losers and frauds taking their free lunch. But as far as I can tell they are a minority and not the norm. From that perspective, I find it unfair that people are judged like that as a default. Of all the people who can't get decent medical treatment, I suspect that only a minority can't get it because they don't WANT to work or get insurance. I can even understand how you can say that that is none of your business. Fair enough. I don't agree but I can understand the argument.

But calling people a loser by default unless he is a vet or otherwise preferred according to your (you as in general) liking is hypocritical and populist and that is why I posted my first post in this thread the way I did.

EDIT:
Btw I thanked TF for opening the argument in a constructive way which I should have done as well, rather than resort to sarcasm to try and get my point across.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 20, 2010)

Bruno, in another thread I believe I said as much. ie: giving care to cops and fire fighters, etc. I think if you put your life on the line for your fellows, you should be taken care of. period.

I also think if you do nothing, sit on your **** and wait for handouts, and your "due", that you're a lazy good for nothing. That however is a different topic.


----------



## blink13 (Apr 20, 2010)

Not enough info.  He could have lost his VA healthcare benefits due to receiving a dishonorable discharge.  He might never have expressed suicidal ideations, thus never giving anyone any indications.  The pain of his existence might have been stronger than his ability to hold on long enough to complete therapy.  Who knows?  Not enough info for us to decide, but hey, it's not FOR us to decide.

Also, to clarify, veterans don't necessarily get healthcare benefits for the rest of their lives.  Most do not, at least as far as what most people would call "free health care."  It depends on many factors.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 20, 2010)

http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=13934&news_iv_ctrl=1261


> On the morning of April 16, an Iraq war veteran, Jesse Charles Huff,  entered the emergency room of the VA Medical Center in Dayton, Ohio.  *After having been refused treatment,* Jesse returned several hours later,  this time dressed in Army fatigues and carrying a military-style  assault rifle. Moments later, he was dead. The rifle may have fired the  rounds that took Jesse&#8217;s life, but the Department of Veterans Affairs  and the Pentagon brass pulled the trigger.
> 
> 
> According to the Dayton Daily News, a medical Center spokeswoman,  Donna Simmons, declined to answer questions about Huff&#8217;s treatment,  citing privacy laws, but did say that Jesse *was a regular patient at the  hospital* and said his suicide was &#8220;an unfortunate incident."
> ...



Highlighted parts of note.

Earlier article mentioned the pain killer Oxycodone.

You have a veteran who was injured 4 years ago, left with long term effects, who was a regular patient at the VA, who was taking a prescription pain killer, who sought treatment and -was refused-.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 20, 2010)

There is some contradiction in stories here, and service dates. But the original notice has a follow up.
http://www.daytondailynews.com/news...iscussing-details-of-suicide-much-662064.html



> An infantryman who    had been promoted to the rank of specialist, he had been seriously  injured    during his deployment to Mosul, Iraq, from 2005 to 2007. He served  with    Bravo Company, 1-17 Infantry Regiment, 172 Brigade based in Fort  Wainwright,    Alaska.   &#8220;From my talks with him, his unit saw a lot of action. It was not  unusual for    them to be &#8216;blown up,&#8217; as he would say,&#8221; Charles Huff said.
> He was sent back to the States and later had surgery on his lower back,  which    was initially successful.
> He continued to battle post-traumatic stress disorder.



Also this one mentions they did find a note, though what it said hasn't been released yet.

As to the person:


> When the opportunity came up for the veteran to attend a resident PTSD    program, he seemed hesitant at first but changed his mind after  meeting with    fellow veterans who completed the program, his brother said. Jesse  opted for    the longer three-month program, rather than a shorter one offered  locally.
> 
> &#8220;He was seeking care and receiving care,&#8221; said Charles Huff, a staff  sergeant    with the Army Reserve, who deployed to Iraq from 2007 to 2008.


and


> Huff said his brother was trying to use the GI Bill to continue his  education.    He had attended Sinclair Community College. A Wright State spokesman  said    Huff was admitted to the university for the fall quarter of 2009 but  never    enrolled.


----------



## blink13 (Apr 20, 2010)

They didn't say what he sought treatment for at that time.

Refused, or "Mr. Huff, that DOES look like a painful bruise.  Please  come back at 8:00 AM when the clinic opens.  Unfortunately there's no  doctor here right now."

Also, Bob... _look at your source._  The article then states that every Marine and Soldier is unable to cope with his life-altering experience.


----------



## OnlyAnEgg (Apr 20, 2010)

I don't want to seem like a jerk, Bob; but, that article is kinda incendiary. Kind of finger-pointery.

Also, it doesn't really give us any more insight. What treatment was refused and why? Note, too, that depression does not always equal suicidal ideation. I mean, he may have been there for more narcotics and was refused or, indeed, there for something that the VA didn't cover. Who can say?

I maintain that a vet shooting himself in front of a VA facility because of a dissatisfaction sounds awfully political. I only say that because no evidence of suicidal thought appears to have existed before, in his case.

Edit:  Busy thread.  This post responds to post #9


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 20, 2010)

Dave699 said:


> They didn't say what he sought treatment for at that time.
> 
> Refused, or "Mr. Huff, that DOES look like a painful bruise.  Please  come back at 8:00 AM when the clinic opens.  Unfortunately there's no  doctor here right now."
> 
> Also, Bob... _look at your source._  The article then states that every Marine and Soldier is unable to cope with his life-altering experience.





OnlyAnEgg said:


> I don't want to seem like a jerk, Bob; but, that article is kinda incendiary. Kind of finger-pointery.
> 
> Also, it doesn't really give us any more insight. What treatment was refused and why? Note, too, that depression does not always equal suicidal ideation. I mean, he may have been there for more narcotics and was refused or, indeed, there for something that the VA didn't cover. Who can say?
> 
> ...



I agree with you both about the articles tone, so I found a hopefully better one which references his brother.


----------



## blink13 (Apr 20, 2010)

The author of that article has a political agenda and is currently AWOL from the Army.

I try to stick to "unbiased" news... I know, I know... kinda difficult.


----------



## seasoned (Apr 20, 2010)

From one that served. When you hit the ground in an unfriendly nation, everyone you encounter wants you dead. Not to diminish any calling where someone is called to lay down their life whether a LEO, fire personal, or construction worker. The military is the only calling that you can't say "I quit", and then you start a new career. Once you commit to a military career you have to see it through, or suffer life changing consequences. Once you sign on the dotted line, you become government property, and that is the type of commitment, that makes all the difference. Not everyone is geared toward that kind of commitment to see it through for the sake of our country. I say give them what they need, when they need it, based on this *highest* calling.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Apr 20, 2010)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Bruno, in another thread I believe I said as much. ie: giving care to cops and fire fighters, etc. I think if you put your life on the line for your fellows, you should be taken care of. period.
> 
> I also think if you do nothing, sit on your **** and wait for handouts, and your "due", that you're a lazy good for nothing. That however is a different topic.



But that is untenable. You are basing a long term decision based on a snapshot of someone's life.

For example a soldier should be taken care of. How about if the never were deployed, of only in deployed in an administrative service (like logistics or support crew)? At what point do you say that people are putting their life on the line. Certain jobs in the IRS or government or even private sector are in a grey area. You'd have to make a comprehensive list of which jobs constituate 'putting your life on the line' and which not.

Or perhaps a soldier saw active duty, (hence gaining eternal care) but then got a dishonorable discharge and decided to wait for hand outs? I'm sure things like this happen. Or perhaps he becomes a drug dealer or a rapist. I'm sure things like that happen as well.

There are dozens of things that would have to be considered for your approach to be sensible. And it would imply the creating of the so called 'death panels' for which Obama is wrongfully lambasted by the right.

The thing is, everybody know what is white, and what is black. Arguing about where to draw the line in the large grey area is difficult. But you can't ignore grey and argue that everything that is not pure white is automatically black.


----------



## OnlyAnEgg (Apr 20, 2010)

opcorn:


----------



## Bruno@MT (Apr 20, 2010)

seasoned said:


> From one that served. When you hit the ground in an unfriendly nation, everyone you encounter wants you dead. Not to diminish any calling where someone is called to lay down their life whether a LEO, fire personal, or construction worker. The military is the only calling that you can't say "I quit", and then you start a new career. Once you commit to a military career you have to see it through, or suffer life changing consequences. Once you sign on the dotted line, you become government property, and that is the type of commitment, that makes all the difference. Not everyone is geared toward that kind of commitment to see it through for the sake of our country. I say give them what they need, when they need it, based on this *highest* calling.



How about the military personnel that will never see or even be expected to see hostile action, like e.g systems administrators, HR personnel, etc? They too sign the dotted line and they too can't bail out (at least in Belgium they can't).


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 20, 2010)

A person puts their life on the line when they put it on the line. Filing papers usually isn't life threatening.


----------



## blink13 (Apr 20, 2010)

http://www4.va.gov/healtheligibility/Library/pubs/CombatVet/CombatVet.pdf


----------



## Bruno@MT (Apr 20, 2010)

Bob Hubbard said:


> A person puts their life on the line when they put it on the line. Filing papers usually isn't life threatening.



Fine. And who decides when someone has indeed put their life on the line?
How close do you have to have been to the action? How about support personnel in hostile territory? And if you become a criminal afterward, do you lose the benefits? 

One liners are no way to make an argument. And even if you reply with a one liner like the one above, you still have to come up with an unambiguous definition of 'on the line' that can actually be used by the administration to grant, deny or revoke such benefits.

Everyone can complain, but coming up with usable solutions is much more difficult.


----------



## Brian King (Apr 20, 2010)

My prayers go out to the family and friends of Mr. Huff. I hope that they can find comfort and peace in their trying times and can forever remember the good of Mr. Huffs life. It is sad anytime somebody feels that they must end their own life but to have so many attempting to use that end to make cheap pointless political points is not only degrading to Mr. Huff but most of all degrading to those that only see his suffering and death as an opportunity. 

Thank you for your service Jesse, Rest in Peace brother. 

I hope that if anyone is feeling depressed (especially while on mind altering/pain medications) that they seek out professional help and hold on, it can get better.

Regards
Brian King


----------



## Malleus (Apr 20, 2010)

Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori?

War can take a horrific toll on people, even if they make it home safe and sound. My sympathies to his family and all he left behind.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 20, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> Fine. And who decides when someone has indeed put their life on the line?
> How close do you have to have been to the action? How about support personnel in hostile territory? And if you become a criminal afterward, do you lose the benefits?
> 
> One liners are no way to make an argument. And even if you reply with a one liner like the one above, you still have to come up with an unambiguous definition of 'on the line' that can actually be used by the administration to grant, deny or revoke such benefits.
> ...


Bruno, I know of a number of people who enlisted, never expecting to be in harms way as they were going to be support, or medical, or waaaay-behind-the-lines types, who ended up under fire. In a place ike Iraq, where simply driving down the road can result in death, or trying to buy a local beverage an injury, I'll go as far as to say, you deserve treatment regardless.  For someone like Mr. Huff, who was actually injured in theater, it should be a no brainer he should have long term care.  It sounds like he was getting it, but something happened and he was refused some treatment for some reason. 

This is only 1 of a -record- number of suicides by our troops, both in theater and after they get back.  Something is wrong. Something needs to be done. Being this far from the subject, I can only say "They need help". I can't say how much, how often, and so on. I'm not a medical expert.  If you'll wait 6 years and send me $150,000US though, I'll be happy to become a medical PHD and get you an expert opinion complete with a lot of theory and jargon.


----------

