Canadian army culture rife with prejudice against seeking PTSD help, says veteran

[Dion]

Fast forward nearly 20 years to 2010 to when former corporal John Lowe finished his tour in the killing fields of Kandahar.

His generation has a myriad of money and programs, but checking yourself in to one is known within the ranks as "spin dry."

Lowe came home alone, a month ahead of his buddies in Charlie Company, 1st Battalion Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry.

He had elected to go into the reserves and the army was adamant about filling out his paperwork back in Canada, and so he was yanked away from the men and women who were, at that time, closer than his family.

As he slept in a near-empty Edmonton barracks, worked out on his own and shuffled paper, he noticed something was off and went to get help.

That was when the nightmare started.

It can be the kiss of career death for a soldier, especially in combat arms such as the infantry, to put their hands up and say they have a problem with the horrors they've witnessed.

"It's the culture; the culture is totally different," said Lowe, who at one point had envisioned going to special forces. "One of the sayings, one of our mottos is suffer in silence. That's what's honourable. That's what we're taught. If you're in pain, you buck up and keep moving."

One bit of advice he was given by a fellow soldier was "take your pills as sort yourself out" and don't take too much noise about it.

"He basically said take a pill or drink something to solve your problems."
Godin, who has battled his own demons after watching Serbs and Croats viciously toss their dead into the Miljacka River in the 1990s, was angry upon hearing Lowe's story.

"It makes me flippin' angry," he said. "We throw resources at something; we have a system set up for this and this, and this after every tour to see how (the troops) mental health is doing, but are these programs working? I don't know."

Godin pointed to the rising number of post traumatic stress claims arriving at the doorstep of Veteran Affairs, and said that the system trains soldiers very well to obey orders and kill, but doesn't teach how to deal with consequences.

He said it feels like not much has changed.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/health/...742/story.html

[undercoverbrother]

The more things change the more they stay the same.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

The more things change the more they stay the same.

It's better to burnout, than it is to rust.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

It's better to burnout, than it is to rust.

need more Break-Free

[Reaper]

If you're in the Canadian military and in Infantry if you report that you are suffering from PTSD you can pretty much guarantee that you will not experience career success in that position. My friend suffered from PTSD, reported it and while the military eventually got him some treatment he was blacklisted. After he began his counselling the military tried to rush him back to duty by having him declared fit when he was not ready. He was up front about him not feeling ready to return and since has been passed over for promotion and had his holidays & scheduling buggered up repeatedly despite returning to active duty.

[Ozy_Flame]

I'm sure there are more social complexities at work in the military than I can understand, but bravado and army culture should never get in the way of treating what can be a lifelong and damaging illness. It is unfortunately such a common thing in the Canadian and U.S. military and the stigmas attached to seeking help for it are extremely unhelpful and damaging.

Reminds me of when General Patton slapped a soldier around for having shell shock from his experiences. I can't believe that attitude still exists today.

[PsYcNeT]

In all seriousness, and this may sound callous, but it's not exactly surprising. The military is a profession based not only around physical strength or endurance, but around a strong mind and fortitude as well. A life-altering mental disorder can (and will) seriously hamper that soldier's ability to perform.

It's very similar to athletes trying to play through injuries, except that in the case of the military, mission success doesn't hinge on one soldier (necessarily) and it's in the Army's best interest to phase out that person's service, rather than continue to work with their injury.

Lack of support after the fact is a shocking injustice however, considering it's an on-the-job injury.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

it's in the Army's best interest to phase out that person's service, rather than continue to work with their injury.
.

I couldn't disagree more. The Service, is not a job, there is nobody (except newfies ) that pick the service as a job for the money. You can't just "phase out" the member like an old piece of kit. The money spent on training that soldier is reason enough to work with him/her to return to fit mental/physical state. Soldiers are invested in their job, they believe in it and enjoy it. Taking that away will only increase the downward spiral.

One of the problems is there is poor tracking of success rate for treatment. The US isn't great at tracking, and they could be seen as the front runners in PTSD creation.

The UK has some numbers

http://news.cision.com/rea-tma-marke...rauma,c9153542

UK charity PTSD Resolution has a better than 83 per cent success rate in resolving trauma for 150 UK veterans of the armed services treated, according to a recent study(1).

http://www.ptsdresolution.org/

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

I couldn't disagree more. The Service, is not a job, there is nobody (except newfies ) that pick the service as a job for the money. You can't just "phase out" the member like an old piece of kit. The money spent on training that soldier is reason enough to work with him/her to return to fit mental/physical state. Soldiers are invested in their job, they believe in it and enjoy it. Taking that away will only increase the downward spiral.

One of the problems is there is poor tracking of success rate for treatment. The US isn't great at tracking, and they could be seen as the front runners in PTSD creation.

The UK has some numbers

http://news.cision.com/rea-tma-marke...rauma,c9153542



http://www.ptsdresolution.org/

The question however, is one of cost. Can you successfully rehab a PTSD suffering soldier to a degree that they will not relapse, and still have more taken out than put in?

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

The question however, is one of cost. Can you successfully rehab a PTSD suffering soldier to a degree that they will not relapse, and still have more taken out than put in?

What are you? A Harper Government economic strategist? You should suggest revoking danger pay because it will weed out the people with PTSD who are in it for the money.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Reaper

What are you? A Harper Government economic strategist? You should suggest revoking danger pay because it will weed out the people with PTSD who are in it for the money.

I'm playing devil's advocate and removing emotion from the equation.

In fact, I'd say it's more compassionate for the gov't to remove a heavily-laden soldier from service, lest we have platoons of Eric Lindros'. Putting a mentally-burdened soldier back into service seems irresponsible on multiple levels.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

The question however, is one of cost. Can you successfully rehab a PTSD suffering soldier to a degree that they will not relapse, and still have more taken out than put in?

That is a great question, but I would suggest it is less than training a replacement.

The numbers are hard to pin down, but:

Let’s just look at recruiting alone. This year, recruiting one Marine cost $6,539, including advertising, college fund and enlistment bonuses. Train that marine and you add $1,614, including the uniform, gear, laundry and chow. Then give that recruit some real classroom learning and tack on an additional $301. Remember, you haven’t paid him yet. Pay, allowance, clothing and moving expenses will add $19,973. Give him some ammo at $787 and then provide him with a staff of drill sergeants, teachers and support staff for $15,674. Total value of a new Marine: $44,887.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3072945/t/...es-high-price/

Not Canadian army, but still it provides an insight, also I don't agree with some of their approach as staff should be pro-rated across soldiers, anyway.

What is the cost to re-hab a PTSD soldier?

That is also hard to confirm.

Troops with a diagnosis of PTSD (which cost the VA $8,300 for the first year of treatment),

http://nation.time.com/2012/02/23/th...to-get-better/

http://timemilitary.files.wordpress....-09-ptsd-1.pdf full report, but havn't read it all.

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

I'm playing devil's advocate and removing emotion from the equation.

In fact, I'd say it's more compassionate for the gov't to remove a heavily-laden soldier from service, lest we have platoons of Eric Lindros'. Putting a mentally-burdened soldier back into service seems irresponsible on multiple levels.

You understand that Post Concussion Syndrome is different from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, eh?

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Reaper

You understand that Post Concussion Syndrome is different from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, eh?

Thanks tips. I was alluding to the fact that he played with compounding concussions for years which ultimately ended his career because of his increased fragility.

It's called a parallel, not an equation.

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Thanks tips. I was alluding to the fact that he played with compounding concussions for years which ultimately ended his career because of his increased fragility.

It's called a parallel, not an equation.

Its not really a parallel when you say "In fact, I'd say it's more compassionate for the gov't to remove a heavily-laden soldier from service, lest we have platoons of Eric Lindros'." as you are equating a heavily laden soldier to Eric Lindros, a hockey player with a well documented history of concussions.

Now, formulate a better argument or stance before you get all condescending, Tips.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Reaper

Its not really a parallel when you say "In fact, I'd say it's more compassionate for the gov't to remove a heavily-laden soldier from service, lest we have platoons of Eric Lindros'." as you are equating a heavily laden soldier to Eric Lindros, a hockey player with a well documented history of concussions.

Now, formulate a better argument or stance before you get all condescending, Tips.

It is a parallel if you read my previous comment where I was drawing on the similarities between pushing soldiers back into deployment and sports teams pushing players back into games before they are medically ready.

I just didn't feel it necessary to spell it out for you.

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

It is a parallel if you read my previous comment where I was drawing on the similarities between pushing soldiers back into deployment and sports teams pushing players back into games before they are medically ready.

I just didn't feel it necessary to spell it out for you.

Your previous post was a parallel. The one "In fact, I'd say it's more compassionate for the gov't to remove a heavily-laden soldier from service, lest we have platoons of Eric Lindros'." is a s4!tty equation.

Sorry, "I just didn't feel it necessary to spell it out for you."

[PsYcNeT]

So you take issue with my comparison, rather than my intention.

Why not argue my point? This is a discussion after all, not an exercise in pedantry.

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

So you take issue with my comparison, rather than my intention.

I thought that was obvious.

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Why not argue my point? This is a discussion after all, not an exercise in pedantry.

I don't have to argue your point. I thought undercoverbrother covered that part quite well.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

The question however, is one of cost. Can you successfully rehab a PTSD suffering soldier to a degree that they will not relapse, and still have more taken out than put in?

I am confused. You are shocked they don't get the treatment in your previous post, but then claim it is too expensive for that treatment.

I get that someone might not be fit for active service in some (or many) PTSD cases, but these guys got hurt on the job, they need to be 'fixed' as well as possible, regardless if they end up back in service or elsewhere.