• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Purple Heart for PTSD?

The Bread Guy

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
2,592
Points
1,260
Also raises the idea of punishing superiors making fun of troops with PTSD (end of article - example given seems pretty sh**ty leadership to me), shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act.

Purple Heart urged for veterans with PTSD
By Jeff Schogol, Stars and Stripes, 4 May 08
Article link

A military psychologist suggests making troops suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder eligible for the Purple Heart to help remove the stigma of a disorder affecting about 20 percent of combat veterans.

Such a move would be a major change in the Purple Heart awards policy, which does not classify PTSD as a combat wound.

John E. Fortunato is chief of the Recovery and Resilience Center at Fort Bliss, Texas, where he treats soldiers suffering from PTSD.

During a visit to Fort Bliss on Thursday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates praised the center, which uses intensive individual therapy and nontraditional ways such as acupuncture, meditation and yoga to treat PTSD.

At Red River Army Depot on Friday, Gates said it was an “interesting idea” to award the Purple Heart to troops suffering from PTSD, adding the issue is “clearly something that needs to be looked into.”

On Thursday, Fortunato said PTSD is a “physical disorder, at least in part,” because it damages the brain, making it no different from shrapnel wounds.

However, an Army regulation precludes troops suffering from PTSD from being awarded the Purple Heart, he said.

“I would love to see that change, because these guys have paid at least a high — as high a price, some of them — as anybody with a traumatic brain injury, as anybody with shrapnel wound, and what it does is it says this is the wound that isn’t worthy, and I say it is,” Fortunato said.

Asked to respond to Fortunato’s comments, the Army provided a copy of Army Regulation 600-8-22 on military awards, which lays out the criteria for the Purple Heart.

The regulation defines a wound as “an injury to any part of the body from an outside force or agent,” such as bullets, explosives and shrapnel.

Post-traumatic stress disorders are among the injuries that do not merit the Purple Heart, along with heatstroke, frostbite, trench foot and self-inflicted wounds.

Sailors and Marines suffering from PTSD also are not eligible for the Purple Heart, Navy spokeswoman Ensign Laura Stegherr said.

To receive the Purple Heart, servicemembers must be wounded as a result of enemy action, and they must have been treated by a medical officer at the time of injury, Stegherr said in a e-mail Friday.

“PTSD does not meet these two requirements and does not meet the eligibility for awarding of a Purple Heart,” Stegherr said.

Stars and Stripes’ query to the Air Force on the matter was still open by deadline on Saturday.

Even some of the soldiers who suffer from PTSD feel that they do not deserve the Purple Heart, Fortunato said.

“Do you know what’s said is that, like [with] most other prejudices, the people with a disorder often ingest their own prejudice … So a lot of them [soldiers] have internalized PTSD phobia,” he said.

Fortunato also said it would help destigmatize PTSD if there were specific punishments for superiors who harass troops with PTSD.

Such harassment includes making fun of troops suffering from PTSD, such as when a first sergeant — who was later removed — grouped troops suffering with PTSD together and dubbed them “The Brokeback Squad,” he said.

“Until there are sanctions that make a superior pay a price for harassing a soldier with mental health problems, I don’t know that it will change that much,” Fortunato said.
-----
 
But it is a lofty goal.  In a perfect world, non-visible injuries would be de-stigmatised to the point that soldiers would happily wear a wound stripe.  Having said that, we clearly do not live in a perfect world.

Dave
 
Sounds like a pretty fast way to generate Combat ineffective units.
 
Bad Idea....

I have seen and personally know of Soldiers advised by the VA to put in for claims of PTSD that are fraudulent. I myself was advised by a VA counselor to put in for a 30% claim without his ever asking me what I did in Iraq.

Now I know they give it for TBI and if you've seen those Poor SOB's going blind from the effects months later you know its deserved.
 
Line Doggie: I'm not convinced the VA is urging folks to file fraudulent claims for PTSD. I think this is counselors trying to take care of young service members that are transitioning back to civilian life. These VA reps know that once a veteran is back on the block, it takes at least 18 months to process a claim for service connection. They know how many folks are returning with PTSD problems and in my opinion are trying to help veterans on the front end.

 
LineDoggie said:
Bad Idea....

I have seen and personally know of Soldiers advised by the VA to put in for claims of PTSD that are fraudulent. I myself was advised by a VA counselor to put in for a 30% claim without his ever asking me what I did in Iraq.

Now I know they give it for TBI and if you've seen those Poor SOB's going blind from the effects months later you know its deserved.

How did you know that the cases were fraudulent?  Did you report anything based on your knowledge and the findings?

dileas

tess
 
- Several years back, an Royal Canadian Legion VAC advisor told me that PTSD/OSI claims were loosening up from the days of ancient 'crats telling FRY tour soldiers "You are too young to have been in a war."  Without going into further details of the conversation, I got the impression that she was telling me that they were trying to assuage their VAC organizational guilt by handing out PTSD pensions like candy. 

- The trouble is, this breeds contempt for the abusers in the minds of the soldiers who SHOULD seek help, but now won't because they want no truck nor trade with the scam artists.

- We need witness statements for physical injuries.  We will eventually need them for the other injuries as well.
 
TCBF said:
- We need witness statements for physical injuries.  We will eventually need them for the other injuries as well.
The problem with that in my opinion is that you might not realize you are witnessing an event that will cause trauma to someone.  Everyones mind is different, you and I can experience the same event and it might not affect you but might cause me lots of trauma or vice versa.  That is the problem with PTSD you cannot predict it and hard for non-professionals to recognize it.
 
- The cases I speak of are those claiming injuries for seeing things they never witnessed.  Being 25km from the incident, being on HLTA, etc.

- At some point, we will have to establish what levels of emotional trauma are pensionable, and what generally falls into the catagory of "stiff upper lip, lads".
 
TCBF said:
- The cases I speak of are those claiming injuries for seeing things they never witnessed.  Being 25km from the incident, being on HLTA, etc.

- At some point, we will have to establish what levels of emotional trauma are pensionable, and what generally falls into the catagory of "stiff upper lip, lads".

Just a question,

Do you have evidencde of this happening?

Do you know what the actual testing for OSI/PTSD?  Do you think VAC will hand out pensions for PTSD like candy, when it is damn hard enough to get compensation and treatment for physical wounds?

Any real life stories, or actual cases would be good to here.  Please provide data, where people are 25km from an incident and claiming pentionable conditions for PTSD.  This would be interesting evidence

dileas

tess
 
the 48th regulator said:
... This would be interesting evidence...

- Grounds for a lawsuit, you mean.
- Are all topics on this website limited to fully documented and anotated cases, or just this topic?
 
TCBF said:
- Grounds for a lawsuit, you mean.
- Are all topics on this website limited to fully documented and annotated cases, or just this topic?

The danger here is anecdotal evidence will cause those that do suffer from PTSD, to be afraid to come forward and blamed by all as seeking easy gravy.

You state that this is happening, and I refute your statement.  I again ask where you have received the evidence of your statement.

As for other threads, and fact finding statements, I did not ask  you to verify all of them.  If fact, read through my post history, the only time I challenge someone on their "data" with regards to posts stating fact or statistics, I have done it to keep the safety in mind from those that can suffer the most from the bs.

dileas

tess
 
- My evidence is anecdotal, and I think you know that conversations with peers dealing with this (or any) matter will not appear here in transcript form.  The army is not the same as it was ten years ago and the new generation of soldiers have a far different sense of entitlement than we are used to.

- I respect your knowledge and experience in these matters, but the situation has been evolving.
 
TCBF said:
- My evidence is anecdotal, and I think you know that conversations with peers dealing with this (or any) matter will not appear here in transcript form.  The army is not the same as it was ten years ago and the new generation of soldiers have a far different sense of entitlement than we are used to.

- I respect your knowledge and experience in these matters, but the situation has been evolving.


Really?  How so?

I only came forward 2 years ago, which is where you feel that the military has evolved to.  So, contrary to your opinion, I do understand the current system.

I am now confused to your views.  You first state that;

TCBF said:
- Several years back, an Royal Canadian Legion VAC advisor told me that PTSD/OSI claims were loosening up from the days of ancient 'crats telling FRY tour soldiers "You are too young to have been in a war."  Without going into further details of the conversation, I got the impression that she was telling me that they were trying to assuage their VAC organizational guilt by handing out PTSD pensions like candy. 

Funny you say that, less than two years for me and it was a hell of a war to get any help from VAC….

TCBF said:
- The trouble is, this breeds contempt for the abusers in the minds of the soldiers who SHOULD seek help, but now won't because they want no truck nor trade with the scam artists.

With regards to the purple heart,  recognition of an injury, and treatment?    I think the best post has been this one thus far to understand;

PPCLI Guy said:
But it is a lofty goal.  In a perfect world, non-visible injuries would be de-stigmatised to the point that soldiers would happily wear a wound stripe.  Having said that, we clearly do not live in a perfect world.

Dave


TCBF said:
- We need witness statements for physical injuries.  We will eventually need them for the other injuries as well.

Excellent statement, and I agree.

TCBF said:
- The cases I speak of are those claiming injuries for seeing things they never witnessed.  Being 25km from the incident, being on HLTA, etc.

Which is what I asked you to provide the data, then you state;

TCBF said:
- At some point, we will have to establish what levels of emotional trauma are pensionable, and what generally falls into the category of "stiff upper lip, lads".

Stiff upper lip?  To help whom?  Those that have been injured or the Leadership that must look after the injured?

Are you stating that the whole deal with PTSD has been a gravy train for the ones not physically wounded to claim a medal and a payment?  That is what it appears to me you are saying.  If I am wrong, I will stand up and apologize for misreading you.

dileas

tess
 
- It is I who should apologize for thread-hopping and not paying enough attention to what I am typing.

- In a nutshell, I know soldiers who need help (alright, whom I and others THINK need help), and I believe they (and others) will not come forward because they have articulated that a few of the people who have come forward are not the ones who need treatment (or renumeration).

- This is complicated.  If I need help, but I see another who has asked for help but "was not there" getting help, am I right?  I hear the statements "Oh him!  He went through nothing..." is that opinion or fact?  In any case, it is enough to keep some from coming forward.

- So we have people assuming a few others are milking the system, so they themselves want nothing to do with it.

- How do we restore their faith in the system so they will access it themselves?

-  What do the 'gatekeepers' have to do? 
 
Back
Top