Wartime PTSD cases jumped roughly 50 pct. in 2007

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » May 27th, 2008, 4:55 pm

By PAULINE JELINEK, Associated Press Writer 40 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The number of troops with new cases of post-traumatic stress disorder jumped by roughly 50 percent in 2007 amid the military buildup in Iraq and increased violence there and in Afghanistan.

Records show roughly 40,000 troops have been diagnosed with the illness, also known as PTSD, since 2003. Officials believe that many more are likely keeping their illness a secret.

"I don't think right now we ... have good numbers," Army Surgeon General Eric Schoomaker said Tuesday.

Defense officials had not previously disclosed the number of PTSD cases from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Army statistics showed there were nearly 14,000 newly diagnosed cases across the services in 2007 compared with more than 9,500 new cases the previous year and 1,632 in 2003.

Story Continues Here

Silverback · Post by **Silverback** » May 28th, 2008, 5:36 am

I do not doubt the voracity of the numbers. I do think our threshold for diagnosing PTSD has become looser, which will hopefully catch and treat symptoms before they get extreme.

RetPara · Post by **RetPara** » May 28th, 2008, 8:47 am

What I have read on the topic indicates that the threshold is 240 days in combat. Because of the multiple tours a lot of troops are way past that now. The threshold figure was reached based on stats from WWII/Korea/V'Nam.

It would seem that we are in unknown territory with this as the living conditions, comm's with home, medical care, and so on mitigating this to a degree.

(IF I am screwed up on this I have no doubt a certain Retired Captain with a genius for a wife will correct me.)

Silverback · Post by **Silverback** » May 28th, 2008, 8:52 am

RetPara wrote:What I have read on the topic indicates that the threshold is 240 days in combat. Because of the multiple tours a lot of troops are way past that now. The threshold figure was reached based on stats from WWII/Korea/V'Nam.

It would seem that we are in unknown territory with this as the living conditions, comm's with home, medical care, and so on mitigating this to a degree.

(IF I am screwed up on this I have no doubt a certain Retired Captain with a genius for a wife will correct me.)

I was referring to the"symptoms" described as "normal". Normal now is a lot closer to actual normal.

Shit I think I just confused myself.

archangel · Post by **archangel** » May 29th, 2008, 7:45 am

I believe the increased numbers have as much to do with soldiers finally starting to see that the army is not going to punish them for seeking help as it does increase exposure to combat. Still not nearly enough of them are getting the help they need. To me its very simple, you've seen so fucked up shit, the help is free so use it.

RetPara · Post by **RetPara** » May 30th, 2008, 9:23 am

Silverback wrote: I was referring to the"symptoms" described as "normal". Normal now is a lot closer to actual normal.

Shit I think I just confused myself.

So if I understand correctly; if you are acting 'normal' according to the latest empirical list of PTSD symptoms... You really have a problem because you should be displaying abnormal behavioral symptoms. Then would the level of 'normalcy' be reflective as to the level of disturbance? Inversely would those who are displaying the PTSD symptoms now be considered the more sane or 'normal' than those who are not displaying symptoms. Another question that arises on defining normalcy is if it is a standard set by civilians or by vetersans? The two definitions of normal could be racially different.

My apologies to Joseph Heller.................

Ranger Bill · Post by **Ranger Bill** » May 30th, 2008, 9:49 am

No apology to Heller is necesary. He would agree... The Catch 22 is that it is "normal" for soldiers to have PTSD symtoms and need treatment. Soliders without PTSD symptoms are "abnormal" and need treatment even more.

Silverback · Post by **Silverback** » May 30th, 2008, 10:11 am

Back in the days of old (when men were men and sheep were nervous) I think society accepted a higher level of "battle fatigue" as a side effect of war which was beyond treatment available at the time, while as now a days if someone has a problem getting to sleep (and is honest about it) or having some nightmares he will be seeing the Doc and getting treatment.

Silverback · Post by **Silverback** » May 30th, 2008, 10:12 am

Ranger Bill wrote:No apology to Heller is necesary. He would agree... The Catch 22 is that it is "normal" for soldiers to have PTSD symtoms and need treatment. Soliders without PTSD symptoms are "abnormal" and need treatment even more.

So I should feel bad that I don't cry myself to sleep at night?

rgrpuck · Post by **rgrpuck** » May 30th, 2008, 2:06 pm

Silverback wrote:
Ranger Bill wrote:No apology to Heller is necesary. He would agree... The Catch 22 is that it is "normal" for soldiers to have PTSD symtoms and need treatment. Soliders without PTSD symptoms are "abnormal" and need treatment even more.
So I should feel bad that I don't cry myself to sleep at night?

I was thinking the same thing. .....

I do not feel I have changed at all. ......then again I could be wrong.

Ranger Bill · Post by **Ranger Bill** » May 30th, 2008, 4:22 pm

rgrpuck wrote:
Silverback wrote:So I should feel bad that I don't cry myself to sleep at night?

I was thinking the same thing. .....

I do not feel I have changed at all. ......then again I could be wrong.

It means that we are too far gone to realize that we are too far gone.