PTSD
Building on the extraordinary impact of MINDS ON THE EDGE: Facing Mental Illness, the Fred Friendly Seminars is currently developing a multi-platform project on post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
Recent studies by the RAND Corporation and the American Psychological Association have found that about 19% of those deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan suffer from symptoms of PTSD or major depression. About 20% suffer from traumatic brain injury.
Of the 1.64 million U.S. troops deployed as of Spring, 2008, an estimated 300,000 are struggling with PTSD or depression. An estimated 320,000 have some form of TBI.
Recent studies by the RAND Corporation and the American Psychological Association have found that about 19% of those deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan suffer from symptoms of PTSD or major depression. About 20% suffer from traumatic brain injury.
Of the 1.64 million U.S. troops deployed as of Spring, 2008, an estimated 300,000 are struggling with PTSD or depression. An estimated 320,000 have some form of TBI.
PTSD in the News
Costs soar for compensating veterans with mental disorders
Compensating veterans with psychological scars has helped fuel a 76 percent surge in service-related disability costs since 2003.
Compensating veterans with psychological scars has helped fuel a 76 percent surge in service-related disability costs since 2003.
Is the U.S. Army Losing Its War on Suicide?
The service's suicide rate continues to rise (it doubled between 2001 and 2006) while remaining flat in the civilian population.
The service's suicide rate continues to rise (it doubled between 2001 and 2006) while remaining flat in the civilian population.
Weight falls on soldiers who've taken life
Soldiers such as Grant Speakes, who say they killed enemy troops in combat, are at greater risk of suffering combat stress and having emotional problems, a new study shows.
Soldiers such as Grant Speakes, who say they killed enemy troops in combat, are at greater risk of suffering combat stress and having emotional problems, a new study shows.
Producer's Blog
The Task Ahead
posted September 17, 2010 8:02 a.m.
A couple days ago I read a post on the Time Magazine web site about an Iraq/Afghanistan vet in Buffalo, NY, who was facing a significant prison sentence because of “bizarre death and bomb threats” he made. The vet was diverted to Buffalo’s veterans’ court where he was put in a mandated treatment program with the possibility of avoiding jail if he completed treatment and stayed out of trouble. A pretty good example of how the system should work, at least according to most people in the field. But there was a kicker – in the form of comments on the posting. They ranged from cries about the waste of taxpayers’ money, to assertions that crimes were crimes and vets were no different, to complaints that vets were being pampered, to the proposal that future criminal leniency would be a great recruiting pitch, to accusations that the news media was portraying all members of the US military as “mentally unstable, crazed murderers and criminals.” Barely a whisper of support – or empathy – among what I can only assume is a random cross section of the Time Magazine reading public. Talk about discouraging! No understanding that this policy will not only cost less now but will likely result in substantial long term economic benefits. No understanding how the stress endured in the service of our country does make vets different – psychologically, yes; but also in their relationship to the services and consideration owed them by the wider public. No feeling for the vet’s family, struggling to deal with the person who returned from the wars. No understanding of the need to surface these issues in order to deal with them. Just a lot of nasty, narrow, selfish, cynical, ignorant posturing. Now, to be honest there were a few more considered and informed voices among the exchanges. But the general tenor of the comment thread was unmistakable. On the one hand, the experience of reading this was very upsetting, as much for the destructiveness of the remarks as for what it seemed to say about the current mood of the American public. On the other hand, these comments show what a massive job of public education lies before us. On top of all the other communications challenges – with law enforcement, the judiciary the care providers and among service members and their families – unless we can make the case to the public and generate public understanding and support, any progress that is realized will be under constant threat. Feels like a call to arms.
posted September 17, 2010 8:02 a.m.
A couple days ago I read a post on the Time Magazine web site about an Iraq/Afghanistan vet in Buffalo, NY, who was facing a significant prison sentence because of “bizarre death and bomb threats” he made. The vet was diverted to Buffalo’s veterans’ court where he was put in a mandated treatment program with the possibility of avoiding jail if he completed treatment and stayed out of trouble. A pretty good example of how the system should work, at least according to most people in the field. But there was a kicker – in the form of comments on the posting. They ranged from cries about the waste of taxpayers’ money, to assertions that crimes were crimes and vets were no different, to complaints that vets were being pampered, to the proposal that future criminal leniency would be a great recruiting pitch, to accusations that the news media was portraying all members of the US military as “mentally unstable, crazed murderers and criminals.” Barely a whisper of support – or empathy – among what I can only assume is a random cross section of the Time Magazine reading public. Talk about discouraging! No understanding that this policy will not only cost less now but will likely result in substantial long term economic benefits. No understanding how the stress endured in the service of our country does make vets different – psychologically, yes; but also in their relationship to the services and consideration owed them by the wider public. No feeling for the vet’s family, struggling to deal with the person who returned from the wars. No understanding of the need to surface these issues in order to deal with them. Just a lot of nasty, narrow, selfish, cynical, ignorant posturing. Now, to be honest there were a few more considered and informed voices among the exchanges. But the general tenor of the comment thread was unmistakable. On the one hand, the experience of reading this was very upsetting, as much for the destructiveness of the remarks as for what it seemed to say about the current mood of the American public. On the other hand, these comments show what a massive job of public education lies before us. On top of all the other communications challenges – with law enforcement, the judiciary the care providers and among service members and their families – unless we can make the case to the public and generate public understanding and support, any progress that is realized will be under constant threat. Feels like a call to arms.
On Receiving Awards
posted July 21, 2010 10:14 a.m.
It’s been both a satisfying and frustrating time here at Fred Friendly Seminars in relation to PTSD. The good part comes in two related experiences. First, our most recent national media production and outreach campaign, “Minds on the Edge” has just received the annual award for outstanding achievement by the two preeminent mental health advocacy groups in the nation: the National Alliance on Mental Illness [NAMI] and Mental Health America [MHA]. It was both an honor and a pleasure to be so generously acknowledged by these wonderful groups. Second, at these organizations’ national conventions, where the awards were presented, it was crystal clear that both NAMI and MHA – and their members – are intently focused on the welfare of our veterans and the challenges many of them are facing, or will soon face, in returning to the US and trying to reintegrate themselves into civilian society. Now the frustrating part: despite this kind of support across the civilian population; despite the resources the issue is receiving; despite the recent relaxation of the rules for “proving” PTSD to receive benefits and disability; despite the vow of Gen. Petraeus, our new OEF commander, to “bring all assets to bear to protect our men and women in uniform”; despite all of this, it’s not at all clear that psychological stress/PTSD problem is getting any better. In fact, the recent rise of suicides among service members seems to indicate exactly the opposite. I remain convinced that a large part of the problem resides in the stigma that people feel if they admit [even to themselves] that they need help with their mental health. Until we can really penetrate down to the junior and non-commissioned officer level, and beyond that to the service members themselves, not much [or perhaps better to say, not enough] will be achieved. Service members just HATE to be labeled "mentally ill" [or anything like that]; many of them don't want to hear another word about PTSD. And I totally get it. But somehow or other, stress injuries need to be accorded the same level of concern and empathy that physical injuries get – and I mean concern and empathy by fellow squad or platoon members, not by officers or other officials. The alternative is a whole lot of crippled or ruined lives. But that is much, much easier said than done, for a lot of reasons. The necessary toughness that must be cultivated to fight wars; the psychological development of young men and women; the ways society organizes its self-knowledge. Lots of reasons. Severe stress and PTSD will always be one of the wounds of war. We can’t avoid that. But we can do a much better job in dealing with those wounds. The biggest step will be the reduction or elimination of stigma – and that is where Fred Friendly Seminars and “When War Hits Home” comes in – in connecting directly to service members and their families. We’re anxious to get this project underway.
posted July 21, 2010 10:14 a.m.
It’s been both a satisfying and frustrating time here at Fred Friendly Seminars in relation to PTSD. The good part comes in two related experiences. First, our most recent national media production and outreach campaign, “Minds on the Edge” has just received the annual award for outstanding achievement by the two preeminent mental health advocacy groups in the nation: the National Alliance on Mental Illness [NAMI] and Mental Health America [MHA]. It was both an honor and a pleasure to be so generously acknowledged by these wonderful groups. Second, at these organizations’ national conventions, where the awards were presented, it was crystal clear that both NAMI and MHA – and their members – are intently focused on the welfare of our veterans and the challenges many of them are facing, or will soon face, in returning to the US and trying to reintegrate themselves into civilian society. Now the frustrating part: despite this kind of support across the civilian population; despite the resources the issue is receiving; despite the recent relaxation of the rules for “proving” PTSD to receive benefits and disability; despite the vow of Gen. Petraeus, our new OEF commander, to “bring all assets to bear to protect our men and women in uniform”; despite all of this, it’s not at all clear that psychological stress/PTSD problem is getting any better. In fact, the recent rise of suicides among service members seems to indicate exactly the opposite. I remain convinced that a large part of the problem resides in the stigma that people feel if they admit [even to themselves] that they need help with their mental health. Until we can really penetrate down to the junior and non-commissioned officer level, and beyond that to the service members themselves, not much [or perhaps better to say, not enough] will be achieved. Service members just HATE to be labeled "mentally ill" [or anything like that]; many of them don't want to hear another word about PTSD. And I totally get it. But somehow or other, stress injuries need to be accorded the same level of concern and empathy that physical injuries get – and I mean concern and empathy by fellow squad or platoon members, not by officers or other officials. The alternative is a whole lot of crippled or ruined lives. But that is much, much easier said than done, for a lot of reasons. The necessary toughness that must be cultivated to fight wars; the psychological development of young men and women; the ways society organizes its self-knowledge. Lots of reasons. Severe stress and PTSD will always be one of the wounds of war. We can’t avoid that. But we can do a much better job in dealing with those wounds. The biggest step will be the reduction or elimination of stigma – and that is where Fred Friendly Seminars and “When War Hits Home” comes in – in connecting directly to service members and their families. We’re anxious to get this project underway.
Bob Woodruff on Brain Trauma and the wars
posted June 1, 2010 8:42 a.m.
We were honored recently to be able to spend some time with Bob Woodruff, the ABC reporter who suffered severe TBI when his vehicle ran into an IED in Iraq. I don’t know if you’ve seen the X-rays of Bob’s injury in the aftermath of the attack, but the left side of his skull was reduced to mere fragments. He was in a medically induced coma for over a month. Very scary stuff. The miracle – the result of the amazing medicine that can now be brought to bear – is that Bob’s wounds are now virtually undetectable. Almost no physical scars are visible and his mental acuity seems as sharp as ever. Bob is acting as one of our advisors on the When War Hits Home project. It’s stunning to be able to discuss the stresses of re-entry with someone like Bob, a journalist who became the story and in the process deepened and strengthened his commitment and understanding. He occupies a unique position – not actually a vet and not totally an objective journalist – and as such he has unique access to and empathy for both worlds. Bob’s ‘citizenship’ in these two worlds reminds me of a recent event that took place at the Columbia School of Journalism, where the Fred Friendly Seminars is located. Kelly Kennedy, another project advisor, Desert Storm veteran and journalist came to discuss her very moving and difficult [in the best possible way] book on Iraq, “They Fought For Each Other.” The book is about the triumphs and struggles of Charlie Company I-26, the Army unit that was perhaps the hardest hit in the Iraq war. It’s a great book. But what struck me was a remark she dropped about her appearance at West Point the day before. When she told the cadets that she was due at Columbia the next day, their expectation was that she would experience significant hostility from the Ivy League audience. That expectation was not at all justified – the reaction at Columbia was overwhelmingly positive – but that West Point cadets should have that expectation is potentially very damaging. Not that Columbia undergraduates probably don’t have analogous misperceptions about their peers in military educational institutions. I’m sure they do. But if these two groups – our future military leaders and our future leaders in civil society – persist in seeing each other as hostile and alien groups, then there is trouble ahead. I’m not sure what a project like, When War Hits Home can do to bridge that gulf, but that is certainly part of our ambition. After all, what we are attempting to surface is a realization of the full cost and obligation that war demands of us. Not that we should therefore totally abjure war, but that we should be cognizant as a society what it costs to send young people out to fight. That means in both money and the welfare of American citizens, the promotion of which is (or ought to be) the ultimate goal of any of our wars.
posted June 1, 2010 8:42 a.m.
We were honored recently to be able to spend some time with Bob Woodruff, the ABC reporter who suffered severe TBI when his vehicle ran into an IED in Iraq. I don’t know if you’ve seen the X-rays of Bob’s injury in the aftermath of the attack, but the left side of his skull was reduced to mere fragments. He was in a medically induced coma for over a month. Very scary stuff. The miracle – the result of the amazing medicine that can now be brought to bear – is that Bob’s wounds are now virtually undetectable. Almost no physical scars are visible and his mental acuity seems as sharp as ever. Bob is acting as one of our advisors on the When War Hits Home project. It’s stunning to be able to discuss the stresses of re-entry with someone like Bob, a journalist who became the story and in the process deepened and strengthened his commitment and understanding. He occupies a unique position – not actually a vet and not totally an objective journalist – and as such he has unique access to and empathy for both worlds. Bob’s ‘citizenship’ in these two worlds reminds me of a recent event that took place at the Columbia School of Journalism, where the Fred Friendly Seminars is located. Kelly Kennedy, another project advisor, Desert Storm veteran and journalist came to discuss her very moving and difficult [in the best possible way] book on Iraq, “They Fought For Each Other.” The book is about the triumphs and struggles of Charlie Company I-26, the Army unit that was perhaps the hardest hit in the Iraq war. It’s a great book. But what struck me was a remark she dropped about her appearance at West Point the day before. When she told the cadets that she was due at Columbia the next day, their expectation was that she would experience significant hostility from the Ivy League audience. That expectation was not at all justified – the reaction at Columbia was overwhelmingly positive – but that West Point cadets should have that expectation is potentially very damaging. Not that Columbia undergraduates probably don’t have analogous misperceptions about their peers in military educational institutions. I’m sure they do. But if these two groups – our future military leaders and our future leaders in civil society – persist in seeing each other as hostile and alien groups, then there is trouble ahead. I’m not sure what a project like, When War Hits Home can do to bridge that gulf, but that is certainly part of our ambition. After all, what we are attempting to surface is a realization of the full cost and obligation that war demands of us. Not that we should therefore totally abjure war, but that we should be cognizant as a society what it costs to send young people out to fight. That means in both money and the welfare of American citizens, the promotion of which is (or ought to be) the ultimate goal of any of our wars.
For more entries, read the Producer's Blog archives.
