You are hereBlogs / jimstaro's blog / Study by Minneapolis VA
Study by Minneapolis VA
Adjustment is rough for returning combat vets
July 2, 2010 A study from the Minneapolis VA, finds anger, substance abuse, social difficulty, shows the need to treat behaviors as much as symptoms.
A study by Minneapolis VA researchers finds that as many as 56 percent of returning Iraq and Afghanistan combat veterans report readjustment problems ranging from dangerous driving to increased alcohol, drug use and anger problems.
The national study of 754 veterans, most of whom have been discharged for at least three years, is one of the first to look at how combat veterans fare once they return home, resume civilian work and attempt to reenter society. The lead researcher of the study says the results show a need for more community-and family-based programming to address the adjustment issues.
Left unattended, the study warns, the problems could affect not only veterans, but also their families and communities. Also, VA mental health providers could be swamped by surging demands for services. Continued
As many of us Vietnam Vets say DeJa-Vu all over again, told before, the years since, and continuing as we help this new generation with the same some four decades of the battles at home!
- jimstaro's blog
- Login to post comments
-
- Email this page
- Printer-friendly version
Coming from the medical field, a symptom is an indicator of a problem that has not been addressed.
It would be no surprise to find remarkable the causing factors. The human body was not designed to be a killing machine, it was designed to be a much more humble cooperative machine looking to adapt in mutually beneficial relationships with others in it's environment. Peter Kroptokin said it best, if we do not get along with others in the forrest, and if any of us avoid cooperation; then none of us animals will survive. That the forrest is a working system that none over do it's bounds. This paper written by a man fed up with human behavior, his own families selfish nature as royalty in Russia, Peter left his princehood, and family; left all this foolishness to live in the woods of Siberia. Now, Charles darwin said something that sheds light to some men"s mentality found in modern times (?), it is that survival of the fitest, the toughest kid on the block fairs best. So Peter is telling Darwin that he is full of it, he is wrong, he is selfish and funded by the very same people that Peter decided to move away from and live in the forrest. The message is that it is far better, in fact it is required; that all animals work things out between each other so we each survive and prosper. And if we get out of balance here, then we all suffer. That being a bully, the meanest toughest kid on the block is by far not the answer.
My point here in this article is that people were never designed for killing, we were never designed to be selfish, to only think of ourselves. And that killing others will cause you great pain inside, that this will never leave you, nor the ones around you. Peter may add, that one should not put himself in a position.
Today's political activists, or anyone else who wishes to act responsible; may add that one should not work for a man who asks you to kill, that anyone with half a sense should know that before working for someone you should know what the work entails. Know who you work for, and can you live with yourself for not asking these questions before being put in an unnatural situation that changes peoples lives forever. each man has a mother, often a sister or brother, a friend. And when you decide to jump in with half a wit to change this dynamic; then you better brace yourself for all the repercussions that will surely follow.
The guy who did this study I find is kinda stupid. He acts as though he is surprised that men will be depressed after harming another. Just as the nurse, policeman, fireman, or military man will tell you; people were not made to see or be a part of in any way. That horrific things are not something you can become desensitized about. We have senses for a reason, and they are telling you in these symptoms to fix the causitive factor, to make change or else. But we refuse to listen, and have scholars write long papers to tell us what we already know. Yes, you kill someone, and you and allot others will suffer for their loss. maybe you should find a better job. The other lesson, is this thing is bigger than yourself, please join in and stop pretending that the world is here just for you. Cooperate, and contribute.
Re. a symptom medically or scientifically being "an indicator of a problem that has not been addressed", this is true, but doesn't fully state what's to be understood for this. Symptoms are to be used diagnostically, to determine what the related problems are, and once the problems have been determined, then what's required is knowing what remedies to use and if there aren't any for a particular problem, then work is to be done to try to determine what might or will work for remedies. Then the lacking remedies or solutions need to be developed.
Hence: Symptom -> problem -> remedy.
We mustn't forget or neglect the third element or part. :)
And of course it's not necessary to always know all of the symptoms that a problem causes for a person or victim. All that's needed is knowledge of enough symptoms. F.e., hypothyroidism can have many symptoms associated with it and even knowing only one seems to suffice in order for a doctor to know that a person has this thyroidal deficiency. I have this deficiency and the doctor who first found that I have this condition only relied on two things. One was known family history of this condition (mother, aunt, grandmother, and great grandmother, f.e.) and then having me get tested at a hospital.
I wasn't showing any symptoms at the time and the first evaluations indicated that my thyroidal condition was still in a dormant stage, but the doctor told me that this might change to active, say, later in life.
And that, I guess, can be considered proactive medical care; because the doctor didn't wait for symptoms to appear, before sending me to the hospital for ... whatever the test is called.
I do believe that this is very true, but nevertheless wonder if some people aren't born with some psychological or brain dysfunction that can cause a person to be born prone to becoming violent as they age. While I think most people (putting aside soldiers for this statement) who become violent do this because of social upbringing, such as being brought up in a violent, callous, socio-psychologically dysfunctional, ... home environment, f.e., and while making it worse can be or is additional reinforcement from associating with other violent people later in childhood or life, I wonder if this is or these are the only causes of people becoming violent.
Some children are violent even at ages 3, 4, and 5. I knew of a few who were when I was those ages. They might have only been violent at those ages because of conditioning at home though.
With this said, however, I don't think most U.S. veterans of the wars on Iraq and Afghanistan, f.e., went into this "service" as wicked, vicious, ... people. Ignorance, lack of qualitative education or social education, due to a lack of this at home as well as in society, in general, perhaps or probably explain why they were easily capable of accepting hellish or murderous military training to begin with. And once in the war zones, the conditions there made it psychologically more difficult for them to be able to conscientiously realize that they needed to dissent and that doing this would be the very best thing for themselves and everyone else. Accepting to be court martialled, et cetera, would've been better for themselves and everyone else, while obeying criminal orders could only be extremely harmful to everyone, including themselves.
I believe that a principal reason for many of them not having been able to make the above sort of decisions has very much to do with families doing too little to see to the social (and possibly intellectual) education of their children; raising them to be too a- or un-critical, instead of critical thinkers. The latter are critical questioners and they are the people with the greatest abilities for conscientious thinking and action, as well as leadership.
And that kind of education does not require growing up in a home of highly scholared people. Schools of "higher education" usually teach nothing about morals, and business ethics contains bs.
Families must not rely on schools and govt providing their children with all of the education and social development skills that are basically essential for people and society to be [healthy]. Families must never leave their educational responsibilities towards their children to others. Schools are for academic learning and some, but not all social development. Not everything children need to learn about being a healthy member of society is learned in schools. And govt often lies, plays games of deception, et cetera.
Families can and should also try to help their children with qualitative academic education; that is, to help them to understand, f.e., that history, economics, ... as taught in schools is often distorted, untruthful, unethical, et cetera. Sometimes the content of an entire course can be mostly accurate in terms of explanation, but contains unethical elements. This is seen with economics, wherein students learn that capitalist economics requires that a society maintain 4% unemployment, f.e. That's not about "free" or "fair" economics; it's about govt working for corporations, business, and not the population in general or as a whole. History courses and books have plenty of distortions, half-truths, false history. Families should help their children to be protected against receiving such so-called education.
Families should educate their children about propaganda of deception, because we're flooded with it and some of it doesn't only come from corporate media; some comes through "alternative" media. Sometimes it's only a question of improperly verified information, instead of actual propaganda of deception, but both need to be guarded against. Some of the propaganda is through movies. F.e., John Wayne is a phony war hero, apparently never having served in war, at all; and Indians did not start the scalping, whites did under the direction of the U.S. President who wanted all Indians dead as proof for the bounty he offered to pay using govt coffers.
Home education needs to start young, at a gradual pace, but nevertheless starting young. And not military-style. A very simple approach is to live by example, give good examples, provide some coaching or advice, appropriate encouragement, some lessons on good principles, preferably corrections for bs taught in schools, et cetera; and to not treat children with baby talk. Once old enough to be able to communicate and, therefore, think, children addressed by adults should be addressed as if by real adults in order to help children develop proper perspective and to encourage their social and intellectual development.
That does not require parents to have high education levels; it only requires maturity and intelligence.
The worst psychopaths and sociopaths have "higher education" degrees; bachelor's and master's degrees, and PhDs. Schools don't evaluate graduates based on social or moral conscience. They also don't evaluate graduates based on social conduct, which usually occurs outside of classes.
But I nevertheless wonder if some persons are born with some sort of brain or mental dysfunction that makes them prone to becoming violent. Is it only a theory that no one at all is ever born to be a killer, that is, with killer instinct?
Some people take so much pleasure in killing that I think that there must be more to this than only bad education and treatment at home when they were growing up.
What about psychopaths that have murdered many people in the U.S. and Canada, both? One of these psychopaths was married, had and lived with his wife and children in Ohio, was a computer professional, and during his "leisure" hours he'd drive out with some old pick-up truck to the countryside and murder innocent people he didn't know using his rifle. Did he learn this from his parents? It's possible, I supposed, but I doubt that it's why he did this. He murdered a farmer working his field, a jogger, and tried to murder two men who were fishing; not people who were breaking any civil or religious laws.
I won't say that no one is born a killer until we have absolutely concrete proof of this. For now I think it's just a theory or guess when people say this. While believing that it surely is true in a general sense, maybe this is another rule that occasionally has exceptions. There's an old saying about rules and exceptions; there are exceptions to every rule.