Psychiatry hits a new low

[skee lo]

Just finished reading the TIME magazine cover story about the U.S. military is deploying half its traumatized soldiers with SSRIs to help them cope with the stress of seeing their comrades getting their heads blown off for an illegal oil war that they don't even want to be fighting in the first place. That is so psychiatry. Scared ****less of getting decapitated by a roadside bomb? Quick, get psychiatry on the line, this guy has a mental disoder! This kid doesn't feel like fighting anymore after seeing his best friend get liquefied? Obviouisly, he suffers from a chemical imbalance! So now they have thousands of soldiers chemically overriding their senses, too coked out on psychiatry to appreciate the misery of their condition. I find this absolutely pathetic and disgraceful. It absolutely blows my mind that any physician could be dumb enough to think this is sound medical care for soldiers. Psychiatry really needs to die.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Geri_Gal]

This is nothing new for the U.S. military -- or any other military for that matter. In WWII, British soldiers were given amphetamines to improve concentration, attenuate fatigue, etc. Even as late as 2002, American military pilots have been given stimulants for long missions (google "The Tarnak Farm Incident").

This has nothing to do with psychiatry. I'm not being glib. This has everything to do with a war that should never have been fought, a painfully stretched thin U.S. infantry, and a government administration unwilling to admit to its mistakes. The military cannot afford to bench or send home its traumatized soldiers -- there simply are not enough -- and instead gives a quick fix, hoping to squeeze a few more months of active duty.

Psychiatry really needs to die? Try telling that to the woman with post-partum depression whose thoughts of killing herself and her newborn vanish with an SSRI, or to the man with paranoid schizophrenia unable to care for himself or live independently without the aid of Clozaril or Abilify, or the elderly woman with agoraphobia that cannot leave her home to buy groceries or go to church without an SSRI or a small dose of a benzodiazepine. Dianetics will not help these people.

 

[skee lo]

The use of amphetamines for concerntration is not at all comparable with the use of SSRIs in the military today. One is legitimate and the other isn't.

Spare me the Scientology references, please.

 

[MedicineDoc]

The use of amphetamines for concerntration is not at all comparable with the use of SSRIs in the military today. One is legitimate and the other isn't.

And enough with the Scientology references.

What's the harm in giving someone depressed an antidepressant if it helps them get through whatever they are going through? Also, how do you figure that SSRIs are equivalent to cocaine as in your term "coked out"?

 

[kronickm]

Just finished reading the TIME magazine cover story about the U.S. military is deploying half its traumatized soldiers with SSRIs to help them cope with the stress of seeing their comrades getting their heads blown off for an illegal oil war that they don't even want to be fighting in the first place. That is so psychiatry. Scared ****less of getting decapitated by a roadside bomb? Quick, get psychiatry on the line, this guy has a mental disoder! This kid doesn't feel like fighting anymore after seeing his best friend get liquefied? Obviouisly, he suffers from a chemical imbalance! So now they have thousands of soldiers chemically overriding their senses, too coked out on psychiatry to appreciate the misery of their condition. I find this absolutely pathetic and disgraceful. It absolutely blows my mind that any physician could be dumb enough to think this is sound medical care for soldiers. Psychiatry really needs to die.

 

[Tired]

I read this article, and I couldn't help but wonder, "So what are we supposed to do?"

If you give them a pill, "You're just shoving pills on them." If you don't give them a pill, "You're not treating their illness."

So what do we do then? Group counseling on the battlefield? Send home everyone who feels sad? I get that half of America doesn't support this war. Trust me, I really get it. But do we have to exploit the real psychological toll of the war as an excuse to pull out? "Sorry, we can't intervene militarily, it may cause depression in our all-volunteer Army." Jeez.

Fifty years ago Patton slapped the crap out of the kid with shell-shock, and America cheered. Today military doctors who offer the best available pharmacotherapy to troops in unfortunate but unavoidable situations, and America craps on them.

 

[zenman]

You let Dr. Edward Tick take care of them.

http://www.soldiersheart.net/Home/About.aspx?SelectedNode=toc-8-11

 

[cpants]

Just finished reading the TIME magazine cover story about the U.S. military is deploying half its traumatized soldiers with SSRIs to help them cope with the stress of seeing their comrades getting their heads blown off for an illegal oil war that they don't even want to be fighting in the first place. That is so psychiatry. Scared ****less of getting decapitated by a roadside bomb? Quick, get psychiatry on the line, this guy has a mental disoder! This kid doesn't feel like fighting anymore after seeing his best friend get liquefied? Obviouisly, he suffers from a chemical imbalance! So now they have thousands of soldiers chemically overriding their senses, too coked out on psychiatry to appreciate the misery of their condition. I find this absolutely pathetic and disgraceful. It absolutely blows my mind that any physician could be dumb enough to think this is sound medical care for soldiers. Psychiatry really needs to die.

I don't see anything wrong with giving soldiers SSRI's, therapy, or any other treatment modality we have available to us, provided it is indicated and the soldier consents. War is awful, and we would expect post-traumatic reactions like depression from the troops. Just because pathology is caused by working conditions doesn't mean it isn't pathology. For example, if an asbestos removal worker got lung cancer after working for years without a mask, we would not be suprised, but we would still treat it.

It is wrong to bring your politics into any discussion of medical care for the troops.

 

[Trismegistus4]

illegal oil war

Is that the phrase Time used? I doubt even they have sunk so low yet.

 

[clarajones]

Hi, This posting has been really informative and interesting....
Keep on doing this good work....

 

[Tired]

You let Dr. Edward Tick take care of them.

http://www.soldiersheart.net/Home/About.aspx?SelectedNode=toc-8-11

There are options for the guys who are back stateside. I don't know them all, so I won't try to sound like an expert. But the Time article specifically referenced the practice of passing out SSRIs in the field. You can't do intensive psychological counseling in a war zone. Just not practical.

 

[Pharmavixen]

It is wrong to bring your politics into any discussion of medical care for the troops.

I would expand that to say it's wrong to bring politics into medical care for anybody.

And your premise is wonky. Not giving someone an SSRI because he's fighting an illegal war makes about as much sense as not treating a soldier who's had a limb blown off by an IED for the same reason.

 

[DrDre311]

I just want to know why Bush the Elder didn't take Baghdad when the U.S. had the support of the (non-America hating) world and immediate justification for doing so. At least we'd have had a head start on the quagmire in which we currently reside.

To any readers who may have served in the military or might serve in the future, I admire and respect your courage and strength. Please don't confuse the fact that I think Bush the Younger is a complete **** with a lack of support for your sacrifice.

 

[Lacheln]

This guy is a troll with a personal vendetta against psychiatry, don't get sucked in.

 

[Tired]

I just want to know why Bush the Elder didn't take Baghdad when the U.S. had the support of the (non-America hating) world and immediate justification for doing so.

Because unlike his progeny, he understood that there's a big difference between "taking" a country and "keeping" a country. He also may have recognized that Coca-Cola and ballot boxes does not immediately turn a nation into a Westernized paradise.

 

[DrDre311]

Because unlike his progeny, he understood that there's a big difference between "taking" a country and "keeping" a country. He also may have recognized that Coca-Cola and ballot boxes does not immediately turn a nation into a Westernized paradise.

I guess hindsight's 20/20. What I mean is that, given our current situation occupying a country with a hopelessly fractured theologic/political situation, I think it would have been better to have started the occupation at a time when the whole world wasn't opposed to it.

And Coke does make everything better.

 

[Dirt]

I think it would have been better to have started the occupation at a time when the whole world wasn't opposed to it.

The first gulf war didn't have the goal of deposing the Iraqi regime, and installing one of our choosing. It had the goal of getting the Iraqis out of Kuwait, which they invaded. The first Bush had a clear cut reason to go into Iraq with a clear cut end to the mission.

 

[DrDre311]

The first gulf war didn't have the goal of deposing the Iraqi regime, and installing one of our choosing. It had the goal of getting the Iraqis out of Kuwait, which they invaded. The first Bush had a clear cut reason to go into Iraq with a clear cut end to the mission.

Yes, I am old enough to be aware of this. However, Bush Sr. was criticized for stopping our advance only 150 miles short of Baghdad--apparently, the thought was that the CIA would be able to foment a successful internal coup to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Obviously that strategy was not successful.

Here's what Dick Cheney said in 1992 about the decision not to depose Saddam at that time:

"I would guess if we had gone in there, I would still have forces in Baghdad today. We'd be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home. And the final point that I think needs to be made is this question of casualties. I don't think you could have done all of that without significant additional U.S. casualties, and while everybody was tremendously impressed with the low cost of the (1991) conflict, for the 146 Americans who were killed in action and for their families, it wasn't a cheap war. And the question in my mind is, how many additional American casualties is Saddam (Hussein) worth? And the answer is, not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the President made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."

How the f*** can you resolve this (very prophetic) statement with the enormous financial and human cost of the current Iraq war?