Apparently some mainstream news organizations decided this year to hold important investigative news stories until Memorial Day celebrations were over. This made me think about such decisions to withhold disturbing truths about the military system. Were they afraid that Americans might curtail celebrations for the incredible service and sacrifices made by those dying or surviving with awful injuries in the two current wars?
At the end of this Memorial Day ABC News ran a disturbing story on Nightline. The Day of Remembrance story was described as "A closer look at the heavy emotional price of serving our country." Even that understated what had been discovered and revealed. In a nutshell what was unearthed was that large numbers of soldiers have not just suffered physical wounds but also serious psychological injuries, including but not limited to post traumatic stress disorder, serious depression and debilitating anxiety. But the real punch line was that seriously ill soldiers were being given prescription drugs and sent right back into war zones, where some committed suicide.
In other words, our military leaders clearly give priority to maintaining levels of experienced soldiers in and more than protecting and addressing the mental health problems of those who have already sacrificed much for their country. Is this policy something that is consistent with all the well publicized rhetoric on Memorial Day from countless politicians, including President Obama? I think not. How is this treatment with any notion of honoring the service of our soldiers? This may explain why ABC News held the story until the end of the holiday.
Some statistics provided on the program was that in 12 percent of soldiers reported taking anti-depressants, anxiety drugs or sleeping aids, and 17 percent in
More important were the heart-breaking stories of family members whose loved ones were sent back into battle despite being diagnosed with serious mental ailments and given prescription drugs, sometimes who later took their own lives. These stories deserved to be told to a much wider audience before and during Memorial Day celebrations so that public pressure could be exerted on the Commander-in-Chief and the Department of Defense to stop this awful treatment of ill soldiers.
The next day I read the New York Times article Autopsies of War Dead Reveal Ways to Save Others. At first I could not fathom why this fact-based story had not been published before or on Memorial Day. The basic revelation was that some smart Army medical professionals had seen the wisdom of regularly performing autopsies and CT scans on soldiers killed in A great deal has been learned, including information that has resulted in improved protection materials for soldiers.
But perhaps the main reason why the article was not published earlier was the detailed account of the discovery that until new information obtained from these activities a tube that had been used for a long time to treat collapsed lungs was too short. A collapsed lung can be life threatening.
The discovery was made by Colonel Howard T. Harcke, a 71-year-old Marine Corps radiologist who delayed retirement to read CT scans. He noticed something important in late 2005. A needle and tube is inserted into the chest cavity to relieve pressure and allow the lung to re-inflate. But in one case, Colonel Harcke could see from a scan that the tube was too short to reach the chest cavity. Curious, he then saw case after case showing the same problem. Eventually, he pulled 100 scans from the archives. He calculated that the average thickness of the chest wall in American troops was so large that the standard tubing with five centimeters length was too short for 50 percent of the troops. The tubing had to be lengthened to eight centimeters to be long enough for 99 percent of soldiers. And to its credit the military made the change.
Might a lot of lives been saved if the overly short tube problem had been discovered much sooner? Were many other changes made in protective gear also delayed because it took so long to learn what was critical? Did the Times intentionally delay publication in order to spare the feelings of those who had loved ones killed or seriously injured in the
Once Memorial Day passed and attention of the news media and the public quickly shifted to other things, these two stories could not possibly get the attention they deserved. Indeed, if both stories had been prominently published a week before Memorial Day there might have been pressure placed on policy makers to address issues raised by the new information. Timing matters.
Joel S. Hirschhorn has succeeded as: a full professor, University of Wisconsin, Madison; a senior staffer, U.S. Congress (Office of Technology Assessment); head of an environmental consulting company; Director of Environment, Energy and Natural Resources, National Governors Association; now an author and consultant. Recent books are: Sprawl Kills - How Blandburbs Steal Your Time, Health and Money, and Delusional Democracy - Fixing the Republic Without Overthrowing the Government. He has published hundreds of articles in newspapers, magazines, journals and on many web magazine sites. He has given hundreds of talks at a wide range of conferences worldwide. He focuses on American culture, politics and government, and health issues.
Thanks for bringing all this to light, Joel. I have caught the subject in the news from time to time...it is unbelievable that the coverage has been so limited. I did write an enlightening article a while back about our war veterans entitled "And They Call it Puppy Love." A very cool thing going on that may help offset some of the challenges. Blessings! Suz
Disclaimer: All information on this site is provided for informational purposes only! By no means is any
information presented herein intended to substitute for the advice provided to you by any health care or other professional
or organization.
