Troubled Minds and Purple Hearts

[unhappycamper]

Troubled Minds and Purple Hearts
By TYLER E. BOUDREAU
Published: January 25, 2009

THE Pentagon’s recent decision not to award the Purple Heart to veterans and soldiers suffering from post-traumatic stress has caused great controversy. Historically, the medal has gone only to those who have been physically wounded on the battlefield as a result of enemy action. But with approximately one-third of veterans dealing with symptoms of combat stress or major depression, many Americans are disappointed with the Pentagon’s decision; many more are downright appalled. As a former Marine infantry officer and Iraq war veteran, I would urge the Pentagon to consider a different solution altogether.

First, let me say that both sides of the Purple Heart debate have expressed some reasonable concerns. Those who believe that the Purple Heart should be reserved strictly for the physically wounded hold a more traditional sense of the battlefield in which wounds are bloody and undeniable. The gashes of war carry an irrevocable purity that tends to make the issue concrete and uncomplicated.

And yet there have been complications. During the 2004 presidential election, John Kerry’s Purple Hearts, awarded for his service in Vietnam, were labeled by his opponents “purple owies” because the wounds he suffered were not considered dire enough. It was a petty episode, to be sure, but it demonstrated the disparate views of this medal. In the interests of guarding the nobility of the Purple Heart, many service members, including me, have suggested that not every last physical wound merits a decoration.

When I was in Iraq, the most common wound behind the many Purple Hearts we awarded was the “perforated eardrum,” an eardrum punctured by the concussion of a nearby explosion. In the vast majority of cases, no blood was ever shed. Seldom did these marines ever miss a day of full duty. And yet they were all awarded the coveted medal.

Admittedly, I was dubious about the “recognition” of these and other lesser wounds; I felt that in a way they subverted the obvious intent of the Purple Heart — honoring soldiers who have been seriously hurt. But where to draw the line? Perhaps it should be awarded only to those who required admittance into a combat support hospital. “The Purple Heart deserves at least one night out of action,” I argued at the time. But my own commander stood fast by the rules, affirming: “A combat wound is a combat wound, no matter how small. So they get the medal.”


Rest of article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/26/opinion/26boudreau.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

[glowing]

1. Perhaps if PTSD was treated with an honorary Purple Heart, it would lead

more to accept that it may be normal to experience PTSD and to seek help. The mind is as probably more important than losing a limb.. If it goes, the rest of the body goes..

[rasputin1952]

2. Reading the article linked to, I can see both sides of the

situation. First and foremost, those who suffer from various degrees of PTSD need applicable medical/psychological care. Those who suffer to the degree where the PTSD is debilitating to the point where employment is jeopardized and the activities of daily living are to the point of incapacity, need more help.

Most of us who have served have heard the stories of the Chaplain who was awarded the PH because he cut his thumb while opening Ham and Lima Beans in a Combat Zone as someone discharged a weapon and he got spooked, (personally, I think anyone who actually ate "H&MF's" should get a medal of some sort!), but those that have served and been physically wounded, or killed by enemy action have received the PH, so where lie the psychologically wounded?

I'm not sure where I stand on the issuance of the PH for PTSD, tradition is a high point in the military establishment, sometimes to detriment, but many times to it's credit. Serving in the military is different from anything else that the world of employment offers, discipline and sacrifice are the norms as opposed to the exceptions, few jobs in the civilian sector ask an individual to put his/her life on the line for their fellow workers.

PTSD has long been overlooked by the military and the VA. Only recently have the medicos come to the realization that war has serious effects on an individual. no one comes through combat the same as when they went in, there are changes that are almost immediate, physical and psychological changes that will stay with the individual for the rest of their lives. Some deal with these changes "better" than others, some fare far worse. Generally speaking, those who go on line in combat are far more likely to be affected than REMF's, (Rear Echelon MotherF***ers). Those in the rear can be affected as well, no one is truly exempt from the effects of war.

One thing I do know, is that a "Black Heart" or similar medal/award mentioned by the author of the article speaks of would be detrimental to the individual it is presented to. It places upon the chest of a man or woman, (and in their 201 File), the stigma of "not making the grade" in military circles. It would be as if society told the mentally ill they had to wear a sign with their diagnosis on around their necks.