This article in the New York Times on the Purple Heart is fascinating to me from an anthropological point-of-view. The ways that Americans are grappling conceptually with mental illness and the ways that veterans' health problems in recent wars challenge our existing categories of pain and suffering would be a fascinating dissertation topic, if I didn't already have an area of study carved out. It needs further investigation, too, in light of how shamefully neglected our veterans often are. The bureaucratic nightmares facing veterans and their families that I heard about on NPR on Veterans Day brought tears to my eyes.
It's not a novel argument for me to point out that medical advances in past decades allow many persons to survive physical injuries that would previously have killed them. How we come to terms with the person who lives on, though, and what unique needs and challenges s/he experiences, is something we are only beginning to scratch the surface of. But why must we culturally delineate those forms of suffering from the ones of those who cannot return to everyday life for other reasons? This is such a complex question, and so evocative to me of how intuitive it is for us post-Enlightenment beings to separate body from mind.
John E. Bircher III, director of public relations for the Military Order of the Purple Heart explains: “You have to had shed blood by an instrument of war at the hands of the enemy of the United States. Shedding blood is the objective.”
Proven Winners Plants Postulations
10 years ago
3 comments:
As a Purple Heart recipient I fully support the Pentagon's decision not to award the Purple Heart for PTSD.
I am very sympathetic to those who suffer this terrible disorder and hope you will acknowledge that the Military and the VA are fully aware of its effects and are offering treatment.
The criteria for this particular medal, however, is the suffering of physical wounds on the battlefield as the result of combat action by the enemies of the United States. There are many other kinds of injuries on the battlefield -- someone can have a leg crushed by a vehicle, you can be injured by friendly fire, you could be exposed to chemical or biological agents, you can even contract a life-long disease. After Vietnam, for example, those soldiers exposed to Agent Orange are now suffering from many diseases, including Diabetes. After the first Gulf war, many suffer from “Gulf War Syndrome.” Where do you draw the line? Moreover, PTSD is a treatable disease -- loss of a limb, or any combat wound for that matter, is permanent. And, what about those who feign the illness just to receive VA medical treatment; or, what about a group who witnesses a battlefield trauma together, but only one or two suffer from PTSD; should they all receive the Purple Heart?
NO!
Just for the record, this is not a new phenomenon, it just has a new name. Soldiers have suffered from "Shell Shock", "Combat Fatigue", and other symptoms since the beginning of warfare.
Since its inception in 1932, this Medal honors those who have spilled their blood or given their lives in the defense of their country. Expanding that criteria only denigrates its honor and those who wear it proudly.
— JB, Lady Lake, FL
I appreciate your comment, JB, and also applaud you and thank you for your service.
You may notice that I am not advocating one way or the other with regard to the Purple Heart; I think it's a complicated issue. Everything you've said here effectively reinforces my position, which was to comment as an anthropologist that the Purple Heart is an indicator of a cultural delineation between the body and mind and how we (as Americans) relate suffering in either realm to our notions of honor.
What I do advocate for is adequate support for ongoing mental health issues of veterans. In expressing your sympathy with those who suffer from these issues, you seem to indicate you share my perspective on the importance of their care.
I don't wish to enter into a lengthy debate here about the limitations of the VA system, but suffice it to say that there are finer points beyond recognition of an illness and "offering treatment" that may make the crucial difference for PTSD patients to get the help they need.
I come from the perspective of a natural disaster survivor who has experienced first-hand the limitations of our health-care system for addressing the unique mental health care needs of persons who survive trauma, be they in the military or in the civilian population.
And the public discussion continues on this topic . . . NPR's Talk of the Nation had a show on the subject yesterday.
Post a Comment