# Soldier suicides on the rise ...



## shesulsa (Jan 31, 2008)

> Suicides among active-duty soldiers in 2007 reached their highest level since the Army began keeping such records in 1980, according to a draft internal study obtained by The Washington Post. Last year, 121 soldiers took their own lives, nearly 20 percent more than in 2006.
> 
> At the same time, the number of attempted suicides or self-inflicted injuries in the Army has jumped sixfold since the Iraq war began. Last year, about 2,100 soldiers injured themselves or attempted suicide, compared with about 350 in 2002, according to the U.S. Army Medical Command Suicide Prevention Action Plan.
> 
> ...



FULL ARTICLE

The article goes on to link other service-related factors with suicide.  Thoughts?


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 31, 2008)

One can't help but wonder about the number of suicides that are occuring after release from military service. We know that there is a large number of ex-soldiers suffering after their time in Iraq and Afghanistan. The military does not count Mental Health concerns if they do not manifest within six months of separation.

With each passing day, the missions in Afghanistan and Iraq become less clear. And with less clarity of objective, it is not difficult to recognize that despair can set into our service people.

Or, perhaps I should say, the clarity we have toward the mission in Iraq, is disheartening to our services. (See 'recent signing statement' 'President Bush')


----------



## Big Don (Jan 31, 2008)

One can't help but wonder if the number of suicides, is like the number of criminal acts attributed to veterans, that is, 5 times less than those who didn't serve. If I had to make a guess, this would probably be a good one. 
Yes, we are in a war, and military morale is UP. Morale was extremely low during the Clinton years, knowing the Commander in Chief hates you, kind of drags morale down...


----------



## Big Don (Jan 31, 2008)

michaeledward said:


> With each passing day, the missions in Afghanistan and Iraq become less clear. And with less clarity of objective, it is not difficult to recognize that despair can set into our service people.


The missions remain the same, the objectives remain the same, the only ones who don't recognize this are those that are so biased to the left that they claim the missions are failing, and thus unclear.


----------



## Big Don (Jan 31, 2008)

Breast implants linked to suicide Lots of things are factors in suicides, to blame the military is ridiculous.


----------



## shesulsa (Jan 31, 2008)

So are you saying there is no credence to the theory behind Battle Fatigue? To continued exposure to derogatory comments and hateful speech? To the decades of documented problems with military health care?

And what would you be basing this on?


----------



## MA-Caver (Jan 31, 2008)

Big Don said:


> Breast implants linked to suicide Lots of things are factors in suicides, to blame the military is ridiculous.


Yeah you're right but to say that the military is a contributing factor isn't ridiculous. A soldier goes out into life threatening situations in hostile environments day after day and is ordered to. If they don't obey that order they face consequences. There are a lot of cliche's that could be said here, hard to make friends when the next day said friend is blown up by a IED, walking around (off duty) in a peaceful neighborhood and said neighborhood blows up from a suicide bomber, driving back to base after a relatively quiet day on patrol and an RPG or machine gun attack occurs... and so on. 
Why people decry the comparisons of Vietnam with this particular "war" is a mystery to me. Unclear objectives, daily hazards from non-combatants, crimes witnessed and unreported and again, so on. 
I find it appalling that the military thinks that severe symptoms of PTSD (or as George Carlin would say... lets call it for what it really is... "*shell shock*!") usually occur within the first six months. Seems they forget how well they train their troops to deal with the stress of combat. Forget that some people deal with stress better than others but eventually it catches up with everyone. 
This is a serious problem, it needs immediate serious solutions. 

And I don't think comparing breast implants to urban combat is a good one.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 31, 2008)

Big Don said:


> The missions remain the same, the objectives remain the same, the only ones who don't recognize this are those that are so biased to the left that they claim the missions are failing, and thus unclear.


 
Then define those clear missions for me? 


As I understood them ... (of course, they kept changing with the passage of time) 

Mission in Iraq: to disarm the Nation State of Weapons of Mass Destruction - WMD did not exist at the time of the invasion. 

Mission in Iraq: to change the regime of Saddam Hussein - Saddam Hussien was hanged by the neck until dead on December 30, 2006

Mission in Iraq: to spread Democracy and stability in a turbulant part of the world - No functioning government in Iraq. Iran's authority and prestige in the region rising. 


So, what is the mission? 
What is the objective?


----------



## Big Don (Jan 31, 2008)

shesulsa said:


> So are you saying there is no credence to the theory behind Battle Fatigue? To continued exposure to derogatory comments and hateful speech? To the decades of documented problems with military health care?
> 
> And what would you be basing this on?


So, derogatory comments and hateful speech such as the antiwar crowd regularly heaps on our military is now bad for morale? Gee, they almost always preface their despicable remarks with "We support the troops, but,"...
What do I base my opinion on? How about personal experience? I was in the Army when Bill Clinton took office, you want to talk about a downturn in morale, try having a commander in chief who hates you. There were a number of articles a few weeks ago in which the "alarming" number of returned soldiers committing violent crimes was lamented. However, after about 5 minutes of research the TRUE statistics were shown that returned soldiers committed only one fifth the amount of crimes non-servicemen of the same age group committed. It is another instance of the left controlled media slamming those who serve, and by extension the president, this tactic is far from being new, but no less disgusting for it's age.


----------



## Ninjamom (Jan 31, 2008)

She- I think his point was NOT that this isn't a problem, but that, even with the increase in rate, the military is still healthier than the 'average American'.

I just read an article yesterday linking the degree of PTSD in soldiers to the history (number/severity/frequency) of concussions they've suffered.

While we usually do not have to contend with the stress effects of daily life-and-death battle, this finding should be of special interest and concern to those of us in the MA community.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jan 31, 2008)

Ninjamom said:


> She- I think his point was NOT that this isn't a problem, but that, even with the increase in rate, the military is still healthier than the 'average American'.
> 
> I just read an article yesterday linking the degree of PTSD in soldiers to the history (number/severity/frequency) of concussions they've suffered.
> 
> While we usually do not have to contend with the stress effects of daily life-and-death battle, this finding should be of special interest and concern to those of us in the MA community.



Uh, Ninjamom do you have a link to this article?


----------



## Big Don (Jan 31, 2008)

michaeledward said:


> Then define those clear missions for me?
> 
> 
> As I understood them ... (of course, they kept changing with the passage of time)


 I dispute that you understood them, but that is a whole different topic...





> Mission in Iraq: to disarm the Nation State of Weapons of Mass Destruction - WMD did not exist at the time of the invasion.


God, are you still on that? The facts are: Hussein was ordered to disarm and PROVE the disposition of the WMD he had previously admitted to having and that ever major intelligence service in the world believed he had. He did not either provide documentation or allow inspectors unfettered access. Thus, no one could be sure whether or not WMD's were still a threat. In fact, no less than Bill Clinton (and he only lies about sex...) spoke on the threat of Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction, as did a who's who of democrat politicians when Clinton was in office, and indeed right up until they realized President Bush would, with our allies ignore the UN's hypocrisy and act to end the threat.





> Mission in Iraq: to change the regime of Saddam Hussein - Saddam Hussien was hanged by the neck until dead on December 30, 2006


 So, advocating regime change was wrong when Bush did it, but, when Clinton, and others, said Hussein was a threat, that was different?





> Mission in Iraq: to spread Democracy and stability in a turbulant part of the world - No functioning government in Iraq. Iran's authority and prestige in the region rising.


 So, Iran having an irrational, racist leader is enhancing to the prestige of Iran? Gee, When President Bush is accused of being irrational and racist, your ilk say that lowers our prestige... 





> So, what is the mission?
> What is the objective?


The mission is as it has always been, to further the spread of freedom, by establishing stable democracies.
What is taking so long? You mean aside from the left in America constantly trying to hinder the Bush administration's efforts? Aside from the supposed anti-war kooks (even US Senators) comparing American troops with Nazi's, when they had no problem with Clinton defying the UN and bombing Bosnia.
Aside from the Democrat controlled congress stifling funding? Aside from that? Gee, I don't know, things take time. President Bush has never proffered a time table, in fact, he specifically said that this war on terror will extend far beyond his presidency. Where was the "Exit strategy?" gee, FDR and Truman had no "Exit Strategy" from WWII, Clinton said the troops in Bosnia would be home by Christmas (1998!) 
The quote that is most relevant here isn't the words of a politician, however, but those of Gen Douglas Mac Arthur: "There is no substitute for victory."


----------



## Ninjamom (Jan 31, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> Uh, Ninjamom do you have a link to this article?


Will search for it, and post when/if I find it again.  (Wish I had saved the link - I would have included it with my original post.)


----------



## shesulsa (Jan 31, 2008)

Big Don said:


> So, derogatory comments and hateful speech such as the antiwar crowd regularly heaps on our military is now bad for morale? Gee, they almost always preface their despicable remarks with "We support the troops, but,"...


So ... let me get this straight ... if we as Americans do our civic duty and voice our disapproval at the actions of the government ... the government which was designed to guarantee our right, priveledge and requirement to do so ... that government and freedoms our soldiers fight for every day of their lives ... it is construed by all soldiers that we are attacking them even when we clearly state we're not?  I can't help but wonder if this thought process is perceived independently or encouraged by certain party factions.  Actually, I don't wonder. I know.



> What do I base my opinion on? How about personal experience? I was in the Army when Bill Clinton took office, you want to talk about a downturn in morale, try having a commander in chief who hates you.


Citation please.  Did he send you hate mail in the field??  I know I make emotional arguments but, this is such an emotional statement it can't be held up for argument, sorry.



> There were a number of articles a few weeks ago in which the "alarming" number of returned soldiers committing violent crimes was lamented. However, after about 5 minutes of research the TRUE statistics were shown that returned soldiers committed only one fifth the amount of crimes non-servicemen of the same age group committed. It is another instance of the left controlled media slamming those who serve, and by extension the president, this tactic is far from being new, but no less disgusting for it's age.


There's a lot to say about this statement.  First, the media is a business plain and simple.  We all know how smarmy the media is - they needed a fresh story.  The old "what the hell are we still doing in Iraq" story is such old hat now it's hardly worth reporting.  We starting seeing  a LACK of war coverage whatsoever until someone shook them up.  So they dug beneath the barrel and came out with that "study" - I won't argue it was trash, but I have serious doubts behind the whole "left-leaning" media thing.  When the president is a democrat, the media lean right. When the president is republican the media lean left.  It's an angle for examination.  Then some just bend over and shove their heads up their asses - because they need to turn a buck.  Hard to aim that way, but whatever.

Pointing out problems is healthy - your take on it is a slam on those who serve and _I can understand why_.  It seems the service is a thankless J.O.B. these days.  I won't defend people who disagree with the Iraq strategy and tranfer it onto personnel - I think they're ignorant people who can't comprehend the purpose of duty nor what the necessity behind following orders is.  I also will NEVER agree with ANYONE who says that if I disagree with the foreign war policy that I don't support troops.  I've volunteered, donated, honored our service men and women consistently - AND I WANT THEM HOME!!! There is NOTHING wrong NOR conflicting with those feelings.  Those who "slam" your president are not by extension slamming you nor any other soldier.  Those who slam soldiers are ignorant.  Those who are in need of a story are heartless businesses who don't care who they hurt or dishonor to turn a buck (see the aim analogy above).

Finally - I REFUSE TO APOLOGIZE FOR HAVING CONCERN OVER THE WELL-BEING, FUTURE WELFARE AND PATHETIC, DISGUSTING LACK OF PROPER CARE FOR OUR FIGHTING MEN AND WOMEN.  You will not convince me to stop talking about it.  You can spew whatever you want and accuse me of slamming military personnel and the president and rutabagas and broccoli for all I care - but I will not stop caring about what happens to soldiers who have fought and fought, given up their lives and livelihood, families and MINDS.  They MUST be cared for.  It should be a TOP priority.

Say what you will.  Some of these soldiers need help they are not getting.  If you think they don't ... then you're part of the problem yourself.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 31, 2008)

Big Don said:


> The mission is as it has always been, to further the spread of freedom, by establishing stable democracies.


 
I refer you to the Authorization for use of military force in Iraq.

http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf

In this document you find exactly zero references to establishing stable democracies. 





			
				Big Don said:
			
		

> President Bush has never proffered a time table, in fact, he specifically said that this war on terror will extend far beyond his presidency.


 
The use of military force in Iraq is not connected to the 'war on terror'. Certainly, it was not in any way connected to the attacks of September 11, 2001; nor the Cole, nor the African Embassy bombings, nor the first WTC attacks. 

And, there are plenty of statements about the amount of time the invasion of Iraq would take by those in the Bush administration; "six days, six weeks, I doubt six months" by the SecDef. The President had ample opportunity to correct any mis-statements. 

see www.bushoniraq.com

But, time-table, or not, the continued occupation of a country where we are not wanted, and where we are not making the political progress necessary must be disheartening to any soldier having to watch the Iraq government take vacations in Europe, whilst they continue to be targets.


----------



## Ninjamom (Jan 31, 2008)

Link for study in the New England Journal of Medicine: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/health/31brain.html



> *Battle Concussions Tied to Stress Disorder*
> By BENEDICT CAREY
> Published: January 31, 2008
> 
> ...


----------



## shesulsa (Jan 31, 2008)

Michaeledward, please either contribute to the topic of the thread or bow out.  This is about soldiers in need, not the bogus policy of the Iraq war.

Thank you.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jan 31, 2008)

shesulsa said:


> Michaeledward, please either contribute to the topic of the thread or bow out. This is about soldiers in need, not the bogus policy of the Iraq war.
> 
> Thank you.


I agree. The scuicides are happening because these people are in a conflict, fair or not. It would be happening even if the US were under direct attack.
Sean


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 31, 2008)

shesulsa said:


> Michaeledward, please either contribute to the topic of the thread or bow out. This is about soldiers in need, not the bogus policy of the Iraq war.
> 
> Thank you.


 
I was taught that it takes two to have a conversation. I can only wonder why this is directed to only one half of the conversation.

And, I believe I am contributing to the thread. I have been fighting and arguing for all soldiers since before the war began. 

These soldiers are not committing suicide at the highest rates since the military started counting, some twenty-five years ago, in a vacuum. The military screens incoming soldiers to filter out those with propencities toward suicide before they get in. To ask what is causing these persons who were stable, to take their lives, is a critical part of the question. To recognize the effects of the continued deployment in hostile territory is a critical part of your question.


----------



## Ninjamom (Jan 31, 2008)

Health issues affecting our service members are serious concerns, and we have a responsibility to those who have sacrificed so much, to care for them, their wounds, and in cases of those who make the ultimate sacrifice, their surviving children and spouses.  I can't stand the thought of anyone 'playing politics' with their wounds.

With that said, I noticed something alarming, yet educational, when I went to search for the link to the study that I had mentioned.  The link that I posted reflected the story pretty much the way I recalled it: those who had suffered concussions were at a higher risk for developing PTSD, but this was in some sense 'good news', because the symptoms could be better treated and some intervention undetaken.  

However, while searching, I found far more links to stories in media outlets that reported a nearly 180-degree opposite position - that a controversial study revealed that many soldiers were being treated for concussions, when they were really suffering from PTSD.  (For instance, see USA Today article here.)

The actual article from the NEJofM may be viewed in full here.  

I hope this hasn't taken this serious issue too far afield/off-topic, but it served as a powerful reminder to me to double-check sources and beware of reading preconceptions (my own or others') into news articles.


----------



## kaizasosei (Jan 31, 2008)

you may even be right.  but first and formost, one should have the ability to positively support people who are only doing their job. 

otherwise, you're only adding to the insecurity that is already there.  
because however bogus you may think one side is politically,, it remains fact that any support whatsoever can go a long way in extreme situations.  also any negativity whatsoever can also do lots of damage.  many of these people may not have had an idea how big a mess they got themselves into, but there must be ways of strengthening  the morale so that these appalling rates sink some.


----------



## shesulsa (Jan 31, 2008)

IF you read the article you'll see it is pointed toward the LACK OF CARE given by the military to this issue.

If you want to argue the actions of government and their responsibility to creating the wars which are the cause of need for soldiers whose service will bring about PTSD, that is another thread.

If you want to make comments based on the LACK OF CARE for SOLDIERS IN NEED, feel free.  But don't hijack another thread please.

Thanks again.

Here's an article directly from the military itself - dated August 2007.




> The threat doesnt stem from any foreign armed forces or military power, and casualties resulting from this threat are often the saddest and most heartbreaking of deaths for the family and friends of these Soldiers.
> 
> 
> The threat is suicide, which ranked as the No. 3 cause of death for Army National Guard Soldiers through Aug. 13, according to the Army National Guards Suicide Prevention Program. There have been 42 cases of suicide in the Army National Guard this fiscal year, and it narrowly trails only combat (47) and accidents (45) in terms of Soldier deaths.


----------



## shesulsa (Jan 31, 2008)

kaizasosei said:


> you may even be right.  but first and formost, one should have the ability to positively support people who are only doing their job.
> 
> otherwise, you're only adding to the insecurity that is already there.
> because however bogus you may think one side is politically,, it remains fact that any support whatsoever can go a long way in extreme situations.  also any negativity whatsoever can also do lots of damage.  many of these people may not have had an idea how big a mess they got themselves into, but there must be ways of strengthening  the morale so that these appalling rates sink some.


You have a point about negativity.  So I'll ask you - how do we as citizens perform our civic duty and call the government on the carpet appropriately without the spin of negativity?  Because frankly, I can't see how anyone can put their discontent at the actions of a few and not have it spun in a negative fashion - there are people who have the very job of doing this.  For example, I could ask Dubya, "Could you please pass the donuts, Mr. President?"  If known I was a registered Democrat who has spoken out and demonstrated against certain republican policies, I'm sure some pundit would point to me and claim I was bossing the man around and giving him my coffee order to boot.  Not only that but I'm sure the fact that I've demonstrated against certain Democratic policies would not only never be brought up but would be buried.  I'm sure friends of mine would be bribed by the media to tell "their story" and I'd be viewed as an over-demanding, self-important, insensitive slut who slammed the president and, by proxy, all troops in service.  Let me be clear that if the president were a democrat, I'm sure it would be no different ... they'd just smile at me while stabbing me in the back and I might get hit on by Bill Clinton.

So ... what do you recommend?  

Shall we all be silent and pray that the care of our soldiers gets better?


----------



## Ninjamom (Jan 31, 2008)

The place for showing care for servicemembers: THE BUDGET

More funds for treatment, research, outpatient care, and (the big one) continuing/follow-up care would say, "I support you" in a positive, meaningful way.  This being an election year, any letter you write to a congressman will 'count double' as far as its effectiveness.  Bring up the issue at grassroots debates.  Write to candidates and ask their position and what they will do about it.  And watch for the political rhetoric that conveniently ignores the question, such as either "Win the war," OR "Get out of the war".


----------



## tellner (Jan 31, 2008)

mward has a point. The criminally negligent standard of care given to affected troops and the official denials of their problems do not exist in a vacuum. The circumstances of the war - no clear objective, no end in sight, a constantly changing mission and so on - are crucial parts of their situation. It is impossible to separate the parts when you are talking about the mental health of battle-weary warriors.


----------



## shesulsa (Jan 31, 2008)

tellner said:


> mward has a point. The criminally negligent standard of care given to affected troops and the official denials of their problems do not exist in a vacuum. The circumstances of the war - no clear objective, no end in sight, a constantly changing mission and so on - are crucial parts of their situation. It is impossible to separate the parts when you are talking about the mental health of battle-weary warriors.


Really?

We can't talk about veterans affairs and the lack of care without disgussing the Iraq war policies?


----------



## shesulsa (Jan 31, 2008)

You see, there seems to be a consistent pattern by military health care to diminish the needs of and neglect the care of battle-weary soldiers as evidenced by the PTSD associated with:

WW2 vets
Korea Conflict vets
Vietnam vets
Iraq 1 vets

now the Iraq 2 vets ... and various and sundry other skirmishes in between.

Those are separate instances with certain commonalities - all involved battle fatigue.  This is handled by military health care ... one of the constants in the analogy.

So ... were all these policies bogus? Should we discuss them all? Or shall we focus on getting our soldiers the care we need?  Perhaps the problem lies in poorly trained military medical practitioners and bad budgeting?


----------



## kaizasosei (Jan 31, 2008)

i think you can still support soldiers even if you don't support the government.
it's not about having the authority or rudeness of telling someone to go back to their mother. it's about having the authority to act as their mother.  isn't it ironic- fighting for your country and then getting hated for it.
- basically, there is evil and human error everywhere on all sides, but if someone kills themselves because they feel like their cause is worthless, then that for me is a real shame.  - as advanced and civilized as the world is, if it wasn't for armies and the individuals that support them, things would be quite different.  not saying it's good, not saying it's bad. it's just the way it is.



j


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 31, 2008)

The rate of suicide in the British Armed Services has been of considerable concern for a long time now. There are various reasons some of which do not make palatable reading. 
In training establishments, bullying by instructors and other recruits has the effect of making other recruits kill themselves. One case I dealt with the recruit was on the ranges and told his instructor he wanted to kill himself, they took him off the ranges and put him on guard saying he was stuck in the army for ever and they would make sure his life was hell. He took his weapon when it was his turn to patrol, went rounf the back of the guardroom and blew his brains out, he was in fact being allowed to leave the army in two days.
Poor recruiting is also to blame, the army is so short of recruits the recruting offices are literally taking everyone that applies without considering the suitability of the candidate.
Too many tours on active duty. The British Army is stretched beyond belief. They are doing six months tours in Iraq, back for three months then six months in Afghanistan then they could be away to the Falklands for six months, not active service but time away from families.then back to Afghanistan etc. There is no relief in sight. Marriages are breaking up, men are losing contact with their children.That alone can make many suicidal.
PTSD, we have soldiers and former soldiers suffering from this from Northern Ireland in the severnties, the Falklands War and the Balkans as well as the two Iraq wars and Afghanistan. 
Soldiers are not just asked to fight for their country not even just asked to die for it, they are asked to kill for it. Fine words saying that's what they are trained for but it's not that simple, I work with a man who was in Aden, he shot dead a young boy of about 8 or 9 deliberately.... because the boy had been given a hand granade with the pin and and told to walk towards the British soldiers, what would you have done in the few seconds you had to think? The soldiers don't just kill the 'baddie' soldiers they also kill civilians, not willingly or sometimes even knowingly but it's a hard thing to live with. Soldiers in the Balkans had to dig up the mass graves and dig out the bodys of women and children, one soldier I know came across a baby nailed to a tree. Hands up who's seen the photos from the Basra road in the first Gulf was, nice work eh? Trying living with doing that.
For me the political point is that we are over stretching our troops, asking too much of them and not caring for them when they get back. I don't know if this is the same for your troops.

From Tellner "_ mward has a point. The criminally negligent standard of care given to affected troops and the official denials of their problems do not exist in a vacuum. The circumstances of the war - no clear objective, no end in sight, a constantly changing mission and so on - are crucial parts of their situation. It is impossible to separate the parts when you are talking about the mental health of battle-weary warriors_. "

This is certainly the case with our troops. At our next MMA show we are raising money for 3 Para Regt so they can buy their lads who lost legs decent replacements, we are proud to help but dear god these lads aren't charity cases the govenment who sent them out there should be providing for them. Elsewhere people are fund raising for a swimming pool for amputees to use as the local one is an hour away from the hospital and besides people using that one complained at the amputee soldiers using it. The government closed down the only military psychiatric hospital in the country and it certainly refuses to believe that Gulf War Syndrome could even possiblty exist. 
Out in Afghanistan we've had stories coming back of soldiers without enough to eat and as with Iraq many stories of there not being enough equipment such as body armour. While the soldiers are away serving on the frontlines their families are living in substandard accomodation as is much of the single soldiers accomodation though there is some new building being down in that respect.
I think the soldiers are doing their best and getting little in return, many have doubts about their part in these wars but being loyal soldiers they put up and shut up but now too much is being asked of them.


----------



## Doc_Jude (Jan 31, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> The rate of suicide in the British Armed Services has been of considerable concern for a long time now. There are various reasons some of which do not make palatable reading.
> In training establishments, bullying by instructors and other recruits has the effect of making other recruits kill themselves. One case I dealt with the recruit was on the ranges and told his instructor he wanted to kill himself, they took him off the ranges and put him on guard saying he was stuck in the army for ever and they would make sure his life was hell. He took his weapon when it was his turn to patrol, went rounf the back of the guardroom and blew his brains out, he was in fact being allowed to leave the army in two days.
> Poor recruiting is also to blame, the army is so short of recruits the recruting offices are literally taking everyone that applies without considering the suitability of the candidate.
> Too many tours on active duty. The British Army is stretched beyond belief. They are doing six months tours in Iraq, back for three months then six months in Afghanistan then they could be away to the Falklands for six months, not active service but time away from families.then back to Afghanistan etc. There is no relief in sight. Marriages are breaking up, men are losing contact with their children.That alone can make many suicidal.
> ...



You said almost everything that I was going to say, being a former U.S. Navy (1st Marine Div) Hospital Corpsman. Right on point.

Another point: one major change that would help out tremendously is that U.S. military should shift all mental health counseling back to the States, in stead of requiring soldiers to stay in country to get counseling before they rotate back home or they EOS. Most of our boys want to come home so badly they skip any counseling offered and then are reliant on the substandard VA care once they're home. That way, at least they'd have a chance for some beneficial treatment.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 31, 2008)

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...oldiers-dying-words-to-his-mother-413277.html


----------



## kaizasosei (Jan 31, 2008)

you gotta have faith. a whole lot of precious faith...


----------



## tellner (Jan 31, 2008)

Yes shesulsa, really. The problems the veterans are facing are not one-dimensional. The conditions they are forced to operate in play an important role in their mental health. That has to be taken into account when we discuss the effect that their subsequent care has on them. 

The conditions of WWI and WWII, Korea, Vietnam and the Gulf War, the servicepeoples' perceptions of their situation, the amount of rest and recuperation they got, the politics of the wars that determined how they were treated by the Pentagon and all the rest are related. If you want a real understanding of the problem you would be a fool to just pick one piece and exclude the rest. Even things like the decision to use troop ships versus airplanes to transport soldiers and marines has a profound effect. I refer you to Lt. Col. Grossman's brilliant work _On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill_.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 1, 2008)

Troops now can face more combat in a couple of years than soldiers did in the entire Second World War. Interesting Tellner mentions the troop ships, in the last war troops had ar least a couiple of weeks at sea before reaching home to help put their experiences into perspective, in the Vietnam war soldiers found themselves fighting in the jungle one day and back home the next with no time to adjust.
I don't think anyone without experience in a warzone has actually any idea what it's like and there is a tendancy to imagine things are like John Wayne films where soldiers die 'cleanly' from one bullet, the soldiers all know who the enemy is and it's a fight between warriors for right and wrong. The truth is the opposite, your mates die horrendously and you ask yourself why and also why not you, survivor guilt is very powerful. Of course they don't always die they are terribly wounded. The 'battles' aren't glorious Agincourt events they are messy, confusing and people other than combatants get killed, mistakes are made, there's been a lot of soldiers killed in firendly fire incidents, last August a USAF pilot dropped a bomb on British troops killing several soldiers, I'm not saying this to blame the pilot but for you to imagine how awful everyone involved must feel,the pilot is another casualty of war. British troops killed Danish soldiers in another friendly fire incident. Sadly these are becoming more common in Iraq and Afghanistan, governments however seem intent on covering these up, regrets were issued but no reasons.
The bottom line I think is where responsibilty lies and thats with our governments, deep searching questions should be asked about whether our troops should be where they are and exactly what we are asking of them. All these people joined up to serve their countries in return their countries have to look after them and their families who also in their way serve their countries. As the British Legion says it's time to HONOUR THE COVENANT. 

http://www.britishlegion.org.uk/index.cfm?asset_id=516704


----------



## shesulsa (Feb 1, 2008)

What I wanted to do with this thread was begin to explore the problems with Military health care using the most recent topical news to scratch the surface.  Before we go discussing war policy ... again ... here's an article about a soldier whose malignant melanoma was misdiagnosed.



> The "fight," as they call it is over what's known as the Feres Doctrine, a 1950 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that bars active-duty military personnel and their families from suing the federal government for injuries incidental to their service. In other words, unlike every other U.S. citizen, people in the military cannot sue the federal government for medical malpractice.



Now ... I'm not advocating the lawsuit bandwagon, though I think a serious examination of military medical practice is LONG overdue. It's not just about poor psychiatric care (clearly forseeable in times of war), it's about care generally and care for our veterans - all who serve and who have served.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 1, 2008)

shesulsa said:


> What I wanted to do with this thread was begin to explore the problems with Military health care using the most recent topical news to scratch the surface. Before we go discussing war policy ... again ... here's an article about a soldier whose malignant melanoma was misdiagnosed.
> 
> 
> 
> Now ... I'm not advocating the lawsuit bandwagon, though I think a serious examination of military medical practice is LONG overdue. It's not just about poor psychiatric care (clearly forseeable in times of war), it's about care generally and care for our veterans - all who serve and who have served.


 
I can't comment on this post as Crown immunity was removed some time ago and  British service people are allowed to sue the MOD for anything now. I will say though it seems terribly unfair that American service personnel can't.


----------



## Ninjamom (Feb 1, 2008)

I think it has a lot to do with the long history of military/civilian perceptions, roles, and responsibilities.

When I was in the service, I was considered US Government Property:
* Military medical care was free and *mandatory* - I HAD to receive flu shots yearly, as well as certain vaccines for international travel.
* I was not allowed to take over-the-counter medication without the approval of a military doctor.
* Service members could be court-martialed (for destruction of government property) if their negligence resulted in incapacitation for duty (such as receiving a severe sunburn while stationed on remote duty in the Kwajalein atoll, near the equator - in fact this was a routine warning given to all personal traveling to Kwajalein)

I think you can see where this is leading - the view is still entrenched that good discipline and adherence to chain-of-command requires that the military can dictate the medical treatment that is in the best interest of the service.  This came into great play in Iraq, where the cocktail of innoculations, pretreatments in case of exposure to nerve agents, trace amounts of those nerve agents, and pesticides became the leading suspect for 'Guld War Syndrome'.  And no, if you were going in-theatre, you could NOT decline any of the innoculations or pretreatments.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 1, 2008)

I'd agree with Ninjamom and it ties in with what I was discussing on another thread where was describing a certain type of army officer we had to deal with. I'm not sure if you have the same problem though the same sense of belonging to the army occurs. The officers I was talking about are ones whose families have always been in the army usually the same regiments which their ancestors founded centuries ago and this is the problem. then the soldiers were thought to be the scum of the earth and treated as such by the officers who commanded them having paid for their commisions. To a certain extent the British army is still back in those days, there is a saying "Officers and their ladies, SNCO and their wives and soldiers and their women". As Ninjamom says, medical appointments are parades where you will be charged if you don't attend, you will have your wisdom teeth taken out whether you like it or not, you will have the shots they tell you to and yes you will be charged for getting bad sunburn or even if you have a vasetomy privately! In other words you are their property and are not thought of highly at that.
I can't speak for the Royal Navy as I've had little to do with them I was in the RAF which is totally different, you are thought to be intelligent enough to be able to sort your medical appointments out yourself etc. The same follows in your job, they didn't invest money in your training etc for you to not be able to work unsupervised. Soldiers however are not allowed to do anything that hasn't been ordered by a 'superior' oh how I hate that word! To get an appointment for mental health issues you'd have to first ask prmission to 'go sick' probably prompting your NCO to ask what's wrong with you, then having to see an army doctor who may or may not refer you to a CPN (Community Psychiatric Nurse) who will be some distance away ( there's not many of them) so permission to go will have to obtained if the doctor agrees you can be referred. Soon everyone knows you are 'loopy' and the first thing people think is that you're faking to get out of the army. Most obviously don't bother trying to get help, things get worse and there a potential suicide or perhaps a murder waiting to happen. I have friends who are military CPNs, they get people referred to them such as officers who've stolen the mess funds and thier fellow officers arrange for them to appear to have PTSD etc to get off with it, the same 'service' isn't offered to the ordinary soldiers! They do however have to deal with a great many unsuccessful suicide attemptees. Many are trying to get out of the army and are felt to be 'faking' by the army but their reasons are genuine if not acceptable by the MOD. Others really do want to kill themselves and several despite help do go on and kill themselves.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 1, 2008)

shesulsa said:


> What I wanted to do with this thread was begin to explore the problems with Military health care using the most recent topical news to scratch the surface. Before we go discussing war policy ... again ... here's an article about a soldier whose malignant melanoma was misdiagnosed.
> 
> Now ... I'm not advocating the lawsuit bandwagon, though I think a serious examination of military medical practice is LONG overdue. It's not just about poor psychiatric care (clearly forseeable in times of war), it's about care generally and care for our veterans - all who serve and who have served.


 
The United States Military provides some of the best health care in the world; when the soldiers are permitted to receive it. There has been a strong push among the bureaucracy to get soldiers discharged and off the military books before the problems manifest, are recognized and diagnosed. Legitimate claims are being denied, as with all insurance companies, under the auspices of 'pre-existing condition'. (The Veterans Administration has a budget of $81,000,000,000.00)

The Report linked to Suicides in the military. But, the numbers in that report, as I attempted point out before being called a socialist and thread hi-jacker, are woefully under-reported. The military, under the direction of Donald Rumsfeld, and William Gates, is turning a blind eye to a significant portion of soldiers and veterans. 

A year from now, you are going to see the numbers of soldier suicides restated. That restatement will be a significantly higher number. 

Incidentally, the Veterans Adminstration web page has on the front page, a suicide prevention hotline - 800-273-8255.


----------



## Ninjamom (Feb 1, 2008)

Tez brought up two great points - the availability (or lack thereof) of mental health care services for military members, and the stigma associated with seeking/using those services.  

Does anyone have any stats on the number of military mental health care professionals in service, as opposed to other types of Drs., or as a percentage of the total?


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 1, 2008)

Look here

http://www.usmedicine.com/article.cfm?articleID=1610&issueID=102




> The task force's report found that there is a shortage of active duty mental health professionals. According to the report, the Air Force lost 20 per cent of its active duty mental health professionals from FY 2003 to FY 2007, the Navy lost 15 per cent from 2003 to 2006, and the Army lost 8 per cent from FY 2003 to FY 2005.
> 
> In addition, the report found that recruiting for the military through military psychology internship programs is lagging. "A preponderance of the psychologists in uniform is drawn into the military through the psychology internship programs," the report stated. "Historically, these have been highly sought internship placements, attracting highly qualified applicants that far exceeded the number of slots available. On the site visits, the Task Force heard from Psychology Internship Coordinators that the number of highly qualified applicants had dropped dramatically. In February, the results of the national match for psychology internships were announced. The Army filled only 13 of 36 slots, while the Air Force filled only 13 of 24 slots. Given the four-year military service commitment of these interns, this shortfall in the major pipeline feeding the psychology corps will have ramifications for years to come."


 
or here

http://www.armymedicine.army.mil/news/mhat/mhat/mhat.cfm

http://www.armymedicine.army.mil/news/mhat/mhat/mhat_report.pdf


However, no number of practitioners is sufficient to overcome the stigma attached to mental health services within the military. Sometimes, it is safest to stay in the closet.


----------



## shesulsa (Feb 2, 2008)

michaeledward said:


> However, no number of practitioners is sufficient to overcome the stigma attached to mental health services within the military. Sometimes, it is safest to stay in the closet.


Truthfully, there is not enough practitioners sufficient ot overcome the stigma attached to mental health services OUTside the military either.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 2, 2008)

shesulsa said:


> Truthfully, there is not enough practitioners sufficient ot overcome the stigma attached to mental health services OUTside the military either.


 
That's true for here too. We are also getting desparately short of midwives. However we don't seem to be running short of non medical executives to 'run' the National Health Service! What we are not short of is deadly hospital bugs.One very badly wounded soldier got the MRSA bug twice in hospiyal. We don't know have any military hospitals, they were closed by the government. Sick and injured military personnel have to go to civilian hospitals which doesn't endear them to local populations as it adds to the already long waiting lists to get into hospital. Theres no good news here at all is there?

Thinking about it there is some good news, the care they receive in the first place from the military medics who battle heroically to save lives at a cost to themselves. One of our students Tony was an army medic, he's just left the army after a traumatic tour in Iraq.He dealt with the aftermath of a Royal Marine boat being blown up in his first couple of days out there and it went from there.When he came back of tour he had a long talk with our instructor who is an ex Army spec forces medic and put in to leave the army. We put him in for an MMA fight (he'd already had a couple before he'd left) which enabled him to get some of out of his system but the army offered him no counselling, nothing so this was the best he got. As he says he throws up now at the smell of bacon cooking and the smell of diesel. he can't fill his car up without having flashbacks.

Sometime ago my instructor brought his laptop in, on it was a slideshow from an American Marine medical team. It srill makes me cry when I think about it. It starts with a helicopter landing and stretchers coming off, then it goes, picture by picture through the casualties being treated. You cannot imagine how horrific this is, it's a nightmare. There's the young men and women of the medical team treating the soldiers ( I assume the are Marines) with skill and stoic cheerfullness, I won't describe the injuries as I don't know who may read this and I'd hate for anyone to recognise a loved one from the injuries. Then when you think you really cannot take anymore, your eyes are full of tears and your heart is in your throat you see the children coming in. the local children who've been caught up in the bombing. One child is swathed in dressing badly burnt with just the brown expressive eyes showing. Several slides later though you do see she survived and was a lot better. At the end of the slide show the helicopter is shown taking off and the last slide shows the treatment room with a lone medic mopping the floor with the debris strewn everywhere. Empty boots with the remains of a leg left in, dressings and blood everywhere. such was the urgency to treat all the wounded there was no time for niceties. 

I think sometimes the surprise isn't that so many go to pieces or kill themselves it's that more don't after the horrors of war.


----------

