The Mt. Rainier Shooting and PTSD: How the Media Got It Wrong

[Tez3]

I heartily disapprove of the way society deployed our military. I think we needlessly put them in harms way and that psychic injuries like PTSD are an unfortunate result.

Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk

Armies are there to be put in harms way, it's their job. Are you sure you mean psychic injuries and not psychological?

 

[Brian King]

Makalakumu wrote again:

"Why is it so hard to acknowledge the fact that psychic injuries lead to violence and then question the policies that cause these injuries?"

First, you do know that there is a very real difference between disorder and injury. The words might be interchangable for some people and uses but not when accurately describing PTSD.
Second, I have only read a couple of hundred different studies on PTSD and different treatment programs but have yet to read a single one that says PTSD leads to the type of violence that that occurred on Mt. Rainier or the city of Skyway prior. Not one.
Third. Policies are always questioned, doesn't mean that they are wrong just because you continue to come up with a different response or conclusion to the questioning. Saying that policies caused the disorder is a unhelpful way of looking at the issue. Two people could be right next to each other and one might end up with PTSD and the other not yet both were following the exact same policies and experienced the same trauma. If policy caused the injury why to one individual and not others?


You wrote that you lost an uncle 20 years after his service in Vietnam on this thread or the other. Condolences, it is always difficult to lose someone. One of the means of leading some to treatment, of giving them perspective on their disorders or injuries is by showing them that by continuing to re-suffer the trauma, the guilt, the experience, is to allow a continuing chance for them to lose and for the bad guys or bad situation to win. They obviously won the battle, now to win the rest of the war. When a military member, law enforcement officer, or civilian kill themselves (either suicide or other long term self destructive behavior) because of trauma suffered in the past they allow that trauma to win. Often a step back allows the lessons the space needed to learn them. You and your family long ago lost your uncle yet you continue to bring him up as a tool to focus your rage and contempt at the system, rage and contempt at politics, rage and contempt at military conflicts, and rage and contempt at people who hold different views than yours, such as in these discussions. Perhaps it is time to step back from trying to convince the world it is wrong and look to the rage and contempt you have within? It is a funny thing, but, by working within, by first healing ourselves, this practice often leads to big positive changes in our sphere of influences. Bigger and more positive changes than the howling at the moon and impotently charging windmills are able to. The howling and ranting is not only self destructive, but is unhealthy for those around.

Some steps a person might take after losing a loved one. Forgive the system while trying to make it a better system. Forgive the person who left. Forgive family and friends who did not do as much as possible to help the person in need. Forgive themselves for the guilt and joy of surviving while others did not, for perhaps not being there or doing enough or not being able to say good-bye. And like the holocaust survivors heal up, and then say nope, never again. A person cannot stop bad things from happening to themselves or loved ones. The only thing they can completely control is how the respond to the bad things. Becoming a victim, increasing the damage of the trauma, getting caught up in the guilt, reliving the trauma even after it has passed, no good comes from this.

Becoming a better stronger person, not in spite of the trauma suffered, but, because of it. Now that is inspirational living.

Good luck
Regards
Brian King

 

[Makalakumu]

Armies are there to be put in harms way, it's their job.

It's societies job to decide how the armies it supports are to be deployed. If soldiers get hurt needlessly, the fault rests on society for sending them to do that job. The only caveat to that position I would throw out is that eventually people in an army can make the decision to leave if they find out that "society" is going to keep sending them into harms way needlessly. Then it's up to the individual to decide.

Are you sure you mean psychic injuries and not psychological?

Both terms seem to be used interchangeably in the media.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1812757,00.html

For every solder killed or physically wounded in Iraq or Afghanistan, some 10 others come home psychically scarred. The Pentagon has diagnosed roughly 40,000 troops with post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) since 2003, and tens of thousands of others are dealing with it on their own or ultimately will be diagnosed. With the war taking such a heavy psychological toll, some inside the military are starting to ask if men and women who become mentally injured in the service of their country deserve the Purple Heart.

Bold emphasis is mine.
​

 

[Makalakumu]

I appreciate the heartfelt response and empathy. This issue makes me very angry because of the losses I've experienced in my own family because of the toll it takes on people around me. I regularly interact with children of veterans who have a very difficult time when their mothers and fathers come home from combat. I have a student right now who is in therapy with his dad as they work through some of the family issues together...the problem is that Dad was just deployed on another long tour to Afghanistan and who knows if they can make progress when he gets back. I hope so.

This kind of stuff makes me very angry when I consider that it doesn't have to happen and that our society is choosing to do this anyway.

First, you do know that there is a very real difference between disorder and injury. The words might be interchangeable for some people and uses but not when accurately describing PTSD.

This is controversial, Brian. It's been debated in the Pentagon that PTSD be classified as an injury worthy of a Purple Heart.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1812757,00.html

With the war taking such a heavy psychological toll, some inside the military are starting to ask if men and women who become mentally injured in the service of their country deserve the Purple Heart. To some traditionalists, the idea is absurd on its face, but it is not a theoretical debate —the Pentagon is now weighing a change in policy that would make PTSD, in a term only the military could invent, a "qualifying wound" for the medal.

​

Second, I have only read a couple of hundred different studies on PTSD and different treatment programs but have yet to read a single one that says PTSD leads to the type of violence that that occurred on Mt. Rainier or the city of Skyway prior. Not one.

Certain cases of depression can explode outward into violence. The same goes with substance abuse. The problem here is that PTSD is like a domino. It can hit other dominoes and cause other problems. If someone with PTSD abuses substances and loses control, the substance abuse gets blamed because that is what is happening at the moment of the incident. Yet, the connection is obvious.

Third. Policies are always questioned, doesn't mean that they are wrong just because you continue to come up with a different response or conclusion to the questioning. Saying that policies caused the disorder is a unhelpful way of looking at the issue. Two people could be right next to each other and one might end up with PTSD and the other not yet both were following the exact same policies and experienced the same trauma. If policy caused the injury why to one individual and not others?

This line of thinking requires statistics. Not every individual reacts to certain situations the same. However, I think it can rightly be said that if a policy statistically causes a higher rate of injury when it is in place versus not being in place, then it is perfectly reasonable to blame the policy.

You wrote that you lost an uncle 20 years after his service in Vietnam on this thread or the other. Condolences, it is always difficult to lose someone. One of the means of leading some to treatment, of giving them perspective on their disorders or injuries is by showing them that by continuing to re-suffer the trauma, the guilt, the experience, is to allow a continuing chance for them to lose and for the bad guys or bad situation to win. They obviously won the battle, now to win the rest of the war. When a military member, law enforcement officer, or civilian kill themselves (either suicide or other long term self destructive behavior) because of trauma suffered in the past they allow that trauma to win. Often a step back allows the lessons the space needed to learn them. You and your family long ago lost your uncle yet you continue to bring him up as a tool to focus your rage and contempt at the system, rage and contempt at politics, rage and contempt at military conflicts, and rage and contempt at people who hold different views than yours, such as in these discussions. Perhaps it is time to step back from trying to convince the world it is wrong and look to the rage and contempt you have within? It is a funny thing, but, by working within, by first healing ourselves, this practice often leads to big positive changes in our sphere of influences. Bigger and more positive changes than the howling at the moon and impotently charging windmills are able to. The howling and ranting is not only self destructive, but is unhealthy for those around.

Some steps a person might take after losing a loved one. Forgive the system while trying to make it a better system. Forgive the person who left. Forgive family and friends who did not do as much as possible to help the person in need. Forgive themselves for the guilt and joy of surviving while others did not, for perhaps not being there or doing enough or not being able to say good-bye. And like the holocaust survivors heal up, and then say nope, never again. A person cannot stop bad things from happening to themselves or loved ones. The only thing they can completely control is how the respond to the bad things. Becoming a victim, increasing the damage of the trauma, getting caught up in the guilt, reliving the trauma even after it has passed, no good comes from this.

Becoming a better stronger person, not in spite of the trauma suffered, but, because of it. Now that is inspirational living.

Wise words here. I definitely get angry when topics like this come up. I think a certain amount of moral outrage is neccesary though in order to effect change. It doesn't help to lose control and get overly aggressive in discussions though. I'll take a closer, personal, look at that criticism. Mahalo.

 

[ballen0351]

It's societies job to decide how the armies it supports are to be deployed. If soldiers get hurt needlessly, the fault rests on society for sending them to do that job. The only caveat to that position I would throw out is that eventually people in an army can make the decision to leave if they find out that "society" is going to keep sending them into harms way needlessly. Then it's up to the individual to decide.

Since we have all volunteer Armed Forces both the individual and society has decided they are not being sent "needlessly" Im sorry your beliefs dont agree with what society has decided but your not going to change anyones mind by defending a murderer and ignoring his past to try and prove your point.

 

[billc]

I have to say that since no one is forced to join, and everyone has known since 9/11 that there is going to be combat against some really bad people, people are not being tricked into going into the combat arms. After their contract is up, they can also leave. Some people see this fight as important, and keep re-enlisting to aid in that fight.

 

[Makalakumu]

I have to say that since no one is forced to join, and everyone has known since 9/11 that there is going to be combat against some really bad people, people are not being tricked into going into the combat arms. After their contract is up, they can also leave. Some people see this fight as important, and keep re-enlisting to aid in that fight.

Even if you believe all of that, who's going to pay for it?

And for those of you who think "society" supports the multiple wars and global empire, well...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Da6irSCvnZY#!

 

[Brian King]

Originally Posted by Brian King.
First, you do know that there is a very real difference between disorder and injury. The words might be interchangeable for some people and uses but not when accurately describing PTSD.

Makalakuma replied:

"This is controversial, Brian. It's been debated in the Pentagon that PTSD be classified as an injury worthy of a Purple Heart."


http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...812757,00.html


With the war taking such a heavy psychological toll, some inside the military are starting to ask if men and women who become mentally injured in the service of their country deserve the Purple Heart. To some traditionalists, the idea is absurd on its face, but it is not a theoretical debate —the Pentagon is now weighing a change in policy that would make PTSD, in a term only the military could invent, a "qualifying wound" for the medal.

Makalakumu
Time magazine has very little credence when it comes to reporting what thinking is going on in the pentagon, especially opinion blog like reports. The article you are quoting written in 2008 is quoting a civilian clinical psychologist, Benedictine monk, Vietnam veteran who was running a therapeutic program along with one other civilian psychologist and 5 social workers.


http://ptsdcombat.blogspot.com/2008/07/army-chief-fort-bliss-warrior.html

“Fortunato designed a therapeutic program, which includes massages, acupuncture, Tai Chi, Yoga, Reiki, power walks and visits to the mall.”

God bless the man for not only wanting to help but actually trying to. The fact that the civilian program was tiny, underfunded and under appreciated probably had nothing to do with his single handedly trying to get the qualifications for Purple Heart awards changed or the changing the medical terms used to describe PTSD, but, it does make me wonder. Regardless, one psychologist will have a hard time getting the medical community to change the meaning of medical terms no matter how much doing so might help his experimental treatment program grants.


For myself will error on the side of using the current medical definitions of the terms and their uses when describing disorders or injuries.


Makalakumu wrote

“Wise words here. I definitely get angry when topics like this come up. I think a certain amount of moral outrage is neccesary though in order to effect change. It doesn't help to lose control and get overly aggressive in discussions though. I'll take a closer, personal, look at that criticism.”

"Before God we are all equally wise... and equally foolish." Einstein

Makalakumu,
My prior post is not criticism but rather observation. I think that you would agree that there is a subtle difference and hope that you read what I write in the light of observation rather than criticism.

Holding on to anger is always a mistake in my opinion. If a person must maintain anger in order to maintain a sense of moral outrage I have to wonder at the logic and need to create and maintain this ‘outrage’. If something needs to be corrected or changed then work to correct or change it. Getting mad at a burned out light does not make changing it any faster or easier. In fact the added tension and aggravation will almost certainly guarantee fingers getting burned.


Regards
Brian King

 

[Tez3]

Combat Stress a British charity has an ad that shows what PTSD can be like. There is a warning on it but I'll repeat it anyway that some may find it distressing.
http://www.combatstress.org.uk/pages/cs_tv_advert.html


If you click on to the part for medical professionals there's info on symtoms etc and what treatment is available. I don't know if there's an American equivilant fo Combat Stress.

However I think it's vital we don't add to the stigma of mental illness and PTSD in particular by attributing actions to it that may not exist in all if not most cases. I think the Vietnam vet alone in the forest type of portrayal should be avoided, that portrayal is used here as much as anywhere when someone with combat stress or PTSD is wanted, the television here has shown characters in dramas being ex servicemen with murderous urges due to being in battle. It's an image that is useful in drama but does nothing for ex service people when trying to explain their condition.
http://www.combatstress.org.uk/pages/find_out_more.html