American soldiers now more drugged up than ever.

[Zelig]

Yeah, its typically a good thing not to fall asleep while flying long missions.

Yeah, reading the thread title, I thought it was going to be about soldiers amped up on modafinil or something.

 

[MobBoss]

But why are we sending injured soldiers (be it psychologically or physically) back into battle when they will be impeded from doing their jobs and possibly put people in danger as a result?

Because not all psych injury is utterly debilitating. There are indeed different levels of PTSD/Pscyh issues, some of which can be treating locally in theater, some more serious that need to be sent home for closer help. Simply because you are taking a medication to help you cope doesnt mean you cant do your job. Gazillions of stressed out civilians are doing it daily.

It doesn't sound so much like we're treating their psychological issues rather than throwing pills at them.

Thats a bad assumption. The article wasnt very good at showing the problems the Medical Corps faces in treating soldiers with these conditions. It was rather biased in its viewpoints.

The soldier at the end of the article did say that he'd rather have had counseling, since he is now addicted to Klonopin.

Anecdotal. A handful of examples in a story doesnt exactly paint a clear picture of the situation. I can only tell you from my spot in the military, that the military has indeed expanded its approach to PTSD as I never have seen in my career. I have to attend mandatory classes frequently teaching how to identify soldiers that may have these symptoms and where and how to get them treatment.

 

[El_Machinae]

Pills can be a treatment for a psychological condition, as well. Hopefully, they'll become better and better treatment over time, to the point where they're better than other treatments.

 

[Formaldehyde]

But why are we sending injured soldiers (be it psychologically or physically) back into battle when they will be impeded from doing their jobs and possibly put people in danger as a result?

Bingo. This is the real issue here. If the soldiers are taking psychoactive drugs with such strong potential side effects, they shouldn't be on duty in a combat zone.

It doesn't sound so much like we're treating their psychological issues rather than throwing pills at them. The soldier at the end of the article did say that he'd rather have had counseling, since he is now addicted to Klonopin.

I doubt you will find too many Army psychologists who do house calls in combat zones...

 

[mrt144]

Ha! No.

It wasn't college, it was boarding school for messed up kids. Many of the lil' bastards there were on 4 or 5 drugs at once.

Boarding schools are awful places in general and the drug use should be no surprise.

 

[MobBoss]

Bingo. This is the real issue here. If the soldiers are taking psychoactive drugs with such strong potential side effects, they shouldn't be on duty in a combat zone.

Not all drugs have the same effect. Your allegation is full of false presumption.

I doubt you will find too many Army psychologists who do house calls in combat zones...

I think you would be surprised at the level and number of medical support personnel in theater.

 

[Narz]

They know what they're doing better than you know what they're doing.

Just because "they" may know a fair amount about what they're doing certainly doesn't mean it's in the best interest of the soldiers. Especially not for 4,296 of them (not counting suicide or accidental death, IIRC).

"They" will do whatever they can to keep them out there, counter low morale & attempt to block out the side effects of war (insomnia, depression, etc.).

 

[Bill3000]

Bingo. This is the real issue here. If the soldiers are taking psychoactive drugs with such strong potential side effects, they shouldn't be on duty in a combat zone.

Strong potential side effects don't particularly matter when the probability of having those side effects are very low.

 

[Patroklos]

Just because "they" may know a fair amount about what they're doing certainly doesn't mean it's in the best interest of the soldiers. Especially not for 4,296 of them (not counting suicide or accidental death, IIRC).

You don't assume correctly, the number you are looking for is 3,689. Regadless, only 12% of that number would have been on drugs at all as per the op, so your comment still doesn't make sense.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Not all drugs have the same effect.

.

Did you even bother to read the OP?

Marine Corporal Michael Cataldi woke as he heard the truck rumble past.

He opened his eyes, but saw nothing. It was the middle of the night, and he was facedown in the sands of western Iraq. His loaded M16 was pinned beneath him.

Cataldi had no idea how he'd gotten to where he now lay, some 200 meters from the dilapidated building where his buddies slept. But he suspected what had caused this nightmare: His Klonopin prescription had run out.

His ordeal was not all that remarkable for a person on that anti-anxiety medication. In the lengthy labeling that accompanies each prescription, Klonopin users are warned against abruptly stopping the medicine, since doing so can cause psychosis, hallucinations, and other symptoms. What makes Cataldi's story extraordinary is that he was a U. S. Marine at war, and that the drug's adverse effects endangered lives — his own, his fellow Marines', and the lives of any civilians unfortunate enough to cross his path.

"It put everyone within rifle distance at risk," he says.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clonazepam

Side-effects

Common

Drowsiness
Impairment of cognition, judgment, or memory
Irritability and aggression[17]
Psychomotor agitation[18]
Lack of motivation[19]
Loss of libido
Impaired motor function
Impaired coordination
Impaired balance
Dizziness
Cognitive Impairments
Increased Sleepwalking (If used in treatment of sleepwalking)
Auditory Hallucinations
Short-term memory loss
Anterograde amnesia (common with higher doses)
Some users report hangover-like symptoms of being drowsy, having a headache, being sluggish, and being irritable after waking up if the medication is taken before sleep. This is likely the result of the medication's long half-life, which continues to affect the user after waking up, as well as its disruption of the REM cycle.

Occasional

Serious dysphoria[20]
Thrombocytopenia[21]
Serious psychological and psychiatric side-effects[22][23]
Induction of seizures[24][25] or increased frequency of seizures[26]
Personality changes[27]
Behavioural disturbances[28]

Rare

Psychosis[29]
Incontinence[30][31][32]
Liver damage[33]
Paradoxical behavioural disinhibition[34][35][36] (most frequently in children, the elderly, and in persons with developmental disabilities)
Rage
Excitement
Impulsivity

Withdrawal-related

Anxiety, irritability, insomnia
Panic attacks, tremor
Seizures[37] similar to delirium tremens (with long-term use of excessive doses)

Your allegation is full of false presumption.

I just love irony, don't you?

I think you would be surprised at the level and number of medical support personnel in theater.

And I think you would be surprised at how few of them make house calls in combat zones. Reading continues to be fundamental.

 

[Narz]

You don't assume correctly, the number you are looking for is 3,689.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090516/ap_on_re_mi_ea/us_iraq_us_deaths

Regadless, only 12% of that number would have been on drugs at all as per the op, so your comment still doesn't make sense.

My comment is not about drugs, it's about the idea that those in command have the best interests of the soldiers at heart which is clearly untrue for the ones that were killed. War is not about the best interests of the soldiers, it's about political objectives (like FREEEEEEEEEEEEDOOOM!!!!). Everyone agrees on that, even the soldiers. The ones with the best morale probably think they're really making a selfless sacrifice (potentially even of their lives) for the Iraqi people (which is a brave & honorable intention). Others are not so sure & may start suffering mentally/emotionally. And that's where the drug companies come in.

 

[Patroklos]

I just love irony, don't you?

Irony: you are still doing it wrong.

And I think you would be surprised at how few of them make house calls in combat zones. Reading continues to be fundamental.

I think you would be surprised at how many are attached to active forward deployed units, they really don't just sit in bases. They are found roving amoungst units on a constant basis. This is also true of chaplains.

 

[Patroklos]

My comment is not about drugs, it's about the idea that those in command have the best interests of the soldiers at heart which is clearly untrue for the ones that were killed.

This comment makes no sense, and I don't really think you can understand why it doesn't.

War is not about the best interests of the soldiers, it's about political objectives (like FREEEEEEEEEEEEDOOOM!!!!). Everyone agrees on that, even the soliders.

Ah, maybe you do understand but you can't process it properly. The second sentance is the key there, as well as remembering that the US doesn't use conscripts.

The ones with the best morale probably think they're really making a selfless sacrifice (potentially even of their lives) for the Iraqi people (which is a brave & honorable intention).

Which of course means that the commanders do have their best interests at heart. I love how you use the word "think" as if you know better what is in someone's best interests than the person themselves.

Others are not so sure & may start suffering mentally/emotionally.

I suggest they reread their commissioning/enlistent oath.

 

[Narz]

This comment makes no sense, and I don't really think you can understand why it doesn't.

Enlightening reply.

Ah, maybe you do understand but you can't process it properly. The second sentance is the key there, as well as remembering that the US doesn't use conscripts.

Ah, so you're saying if someone agrees to something that automatically means it's in their best interests?

Which of course means that the commanders do have their best interests at heart.

No it doesn't.

I love how you use the word "think" as if you know better what is in someone's best interests than the person themselves.

Nowhere did I interject my opinion, you're projecting what you think I'm doing, ironicly. Reread my sentence if you need to. I said some soliders may think they are fighting purely for Iraqi freedom. I nowhere stated whether I think they are right or wrong (though I do, of course, have an opinion) nor did I say "I know better". Read more carefully instead of posting so fast.

I suggest they reread their commissioning/enlistent oath.

Want to share which part?

 

[Patroklos]

Nowhere did I interject my opinion, you're projecting what you think I'm doing, ironicly. Reread my sentence if you need to. I said some soliders may think they are fighting purely for Iraqi freedom

You need to reread the sentance, I bolded the part that is relevant. If you want your impartiality to show then write your sentance in a manor that shows it. I know what you mean now, but to any casual reader your choice of words shows opinion.

Want to share which part?

The part that refutes any person who says "I didn't sign up for this."

 

[Samson]

Hasn't anyone here read catch - 22? The definition of mental illness is wanting to be in a war zone, and the definition of sanity is wanting to get out of one. Every volenteer over there is mad, so what do you expect?

Spoiler :

Catch - 22 is a comedy novel with a deadly serious message. This post could be considered in a similar vein.

 

[MobBoss]

.

Did you even bother to read the OP?

Yup, did you? A singular case, while problematic, isnt necessarily indicative of a huge problem.

And I think you would be surprised at how few of them make house calls in combat zones. Reading continues to be fundamental.

Again, your understanding is simply incomplete. There are absolutely medical personnel stationed in 'combat zones' all across Iraq and also in Afghanistan. They live in the same exact compounds and bases where the rest of the troops live. Your 'house call' comment is simply nonsensical.

 

[Narz]

You need to reread the sentance, I bolded the part that is relevant. If you want your impartiality to show then write your sentance in a manor that shows it. I know what you mean now, but to any casual reader your choice of words shows opinion.

The statement is still factual, inferring my opinion based on that is the reader's prerogative but I make no implicit judgments.

The part that refutes any person who says "I didn't sign up for this."

It's funny how minors aren't supposed to drink, **** or vote but they can sign up to goto war at 17.

Just because someone choose their destiny doesn't mean they really understand all that comes with it. Same with agreeing to take a drug actually.

Hasn't anyone here read catch - 22? The definition of mental illness is wanting to be in a war zone, and the definition of sanity is wanting to get out of one. Every volenteer over there is mad, so what do you expect?

Spoiler :

Catch - 22 is a comedy novel with a deadly serious message. This post could be considered in a similar vein.

Been meaning to get around to that one for awhile now.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Yup, did you? A singular case, while problematic, isnt necessarily indicative of a huge problem.

I never claimed it was. However, this is likely the tip of the iceberg:

Critics of medication use in Vietnam also said that a soldier traumatized by battle may not be coherent enough to give his consent to take the drugs in the first place. Plus, a soldier would risk court-martial if he refused to follow orders, they said, making it unlikely he could make a reasoned decision about taking the medications.

After the war, the practice of liberally giving psychiatric drugs to warriors fell out of favor. In War Psychiatry, a 1995 military medical textbook, a U. S. Air Force flight surgeon warned about the use of psychiatric drugs, saying they should be used sparingly.

"Sending a person back to combat duty still under the influence of psychoactive drugs may be dangerous," he wrote. "Even in peacetime, people in the many combat-support positions... would not be allowed to take such medications and continue to work in their sensitive, demanding jobs."

Colonel Elspeth Cameron Ritchie, M. D., M. P. H., a psychiatrist and the medical director of the strategic communication directorate in the Office of the Army Surgeon General, acknowledges that writing more prescriptions for frontline troops was a change in direction for the Pentagon. "Twenty years ago," she says, "we weren't deploying soldiers on medications."

But, of course, you know more than this flight surgeon and Colonel Ritchie do on this particular subject...

Again, your understanding is simply incomplete.

Again, your comprehension of what I posted is simply incomplete. There are no psychologists who make house calls in combat zones. If you think otherwise, provide a factual source which states otherwise.

 

[MobBoss]

Again, your comprehension of what I posted is simply incomplete. There are no psychologists who make house calls in combat zones. If you think otherwise, provide a factual source.

I love these opportunities to show you how ignorant you are of things military. The NPR good enough for you? http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104149509

Neal Conan talks with Tom Tarantino, legislative associate for Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, who served with the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment, and Bryan Shea, a psychologist at St. Lawrence Psychiatric Center in New York who served three tours in Iraq as a military psychologist seeing soldiers in the field.

Please read the part I bolded and underlined for you. Then read it again. Then again.

"Twenty years ago," she says, "we weren't deploying soldiers on medications."

Twenty years ago, we werent at war. Duh.