The armed forces are shooting themselves in the foot. And by 'themselves' I am referring to our solders. This ridiculous screening methodology (ie "go off your meds, and see if you're cured!") is one of the reasons why ppl on active duty have a higher rate of psychiatric illness vs the general population.
The screening methodology doesn't seem to ridiculous to me: if you suffer from certain types of mental illness that requires regular medication for your safety in the military environment (e.g.: high stress, high stakes, etc.), you are ineligible for joining. It's because the military can't guarantee your access to that medication.
Individuals going off their medications with a doctor's supervision I have mixed feelings about. I've had more than a couple people who have been on SSRI's for 5 and 10 years because of a single short episode of uncomplicated depression that have never been trialed without their meds. Scary....
Obviously it's not very 'fun' illness from the perspective of the practitioner, ie no psychosis, but as many as
10% of armed forces have serious mental health problem such as etoh dependence. It seems that's about
double the prevalence of the general population
Great article, I reference it a fair bit. Dr. Hoge is one of the biggies in PTSD research. This one is a good read.
There are two things to keep in mind when comparing the mental health problem rates of soldiers vs. the general public: 1) soldiers are not a good sampling of the general public and skew lower on the socioeconomic ladder; 2) the most dangerous thing the general public regularly does is commute to work. The former is significant because rates of trauma exposure and mental illness are higher in lower socioeconomic communities. The latter is relevant because rates of PTSD, depression, anxiety, and adjustment DO's take a big jump up after time in the military which involves frequent disruptions and exposures that civilians typically don't face.
Incidentally, I have a hunch that the prevalence for mental illness is a good bit higher than when that study was first done. There's been a lot more bodies sent to war since then, and war at a hotter tempo than when he did his surveys.
The selection process is such that a lot of leeway is given to the evaluators, and there very few absolute reasons for disqualification from joining the armed forces.
True. All of the things I mentioned above are disqualifying. Period. But applicants can file an appeal that is then judged, studied and ruled upon. Which is really as it ought to be, imho. There's the "problem child" that was determined to have ADHD when on re-evaluation it was obvious it was more disciplinary in nature. There is the person who qualified for alcohol abuse by DSM criteria, but does not have what appears to be a concerning relationship with alcohol now. A suicidal gesture that involved cutting as a means of getting a parent's attention during a divorce can be judged to not be evidence of persistent mental illness. Exceptions are made on a case by case basis.
Which is fine with me. I was first disqualified for service based on the fact that I take a daily medication. I had to file an appeal that stated that even if interrupted from this daily medication, it would not have a potential to put myself or my fellow soldiers at risk. I was DQ'd for a statin, but was given a waiver.
In fact, the entire screening process for applicants is completely dependent on how desperate they are.
You're absolutely right. When the wars were hot and heavy, waivers were approved at a much faster rate. With the military downsizing now, they are hard to come by. This has always been the way with the military. When they have trouble staffing up, they lower requirements. When they are overstaffed, they make it harder to get in. Of course that's true of most industries.
To me, standards mean you keep the bar at a certain level across all people. But the armed forces change their entry requirements for a few people to meet their quotas, and in doing so they do a disservice to everyone, including the men and women they employ.
I'm not sure if you're talking about the waivers or the requirements. Waivers are case by case and requirements don't change unless there's a crisis. Requirements were lowered a fair bit over the last 10 years, as the wars was making it very hard to keep a pipeline. You get a lot of eager beavers when a war first breaks out and enlistment numbers rise; giive it a year of what looks like a prolonged war and those numbers plumet. They raised the max age ceiling for enlistment for one thing and went softer on some of their moral clauses (dropped some minor legal offenses as disqualifying). Some would say lowering qualifications was a mistake, but the military (Army especially) was so understaffed that they didn't really have a choice. Even with lowered standards, the deployment schedules were at a tempo unheard of in the past. I know several folks with 5 deployments. You didn't see that with any regularity even during Vietnam and WWII.
The only alternative to this policy of changing enlistment requirements is to institute a draft or stay out of lengthy wars. Some folks would make the argument that doing the first would lead to the second. Fellows in Switzerland have mandatory military service and I don't see them in too many wars...
