> Maybe the best thing to do for someone who has had PTSD is to give them the treatment they need, a warm handshake and then let them get on with their lives?
Why should that same thing not be done with physical injuries? Why should they warrant a medal, and not someone with mental injuries?
> I am not a mental health professional, but I would think that the best treatment would be to get them on their feet and moving in the right direction and let them do the healing.
I’m not a mental health professional either, but I do sit as a Trustee on a board of an organization that looks after the mentally ill. People who use our services struggle with a number of things right outside their mental illness: first is the stigma that always comes along with having a mental illness.
This stigma does not come along with any other illness or physical injury: only the mentally ill get stigmatized for being ill. And they struggle with having their illness being recognized as something that cannot be fixed by “simply snapping out of it”. Seems like everyone is an expert on fixing mental illnesses, from Tony Robbins to Deepak Chopra to Joe Bloggs at the water cooler. Yet physical illnesses and injuries are usually left to the “professionals”. So, usually, mental illness is not taken as seriously as it should be.
> I don’t think a medal would help towards that end.
Again, turning the question around, why would a medal help toward helping a soldier who had been physically injured to heal? Why is his physical injury more “serious” and “praiseworthy” than another soldier’s mental injury? Why is the physical injury more deserving of a medal?
I am unconvinced by this: I think the Pentagon is making a mistake.
In the interest of full disclosure, I am a retired Army major. That may or may not be pertinent; however, as an Army retiree I felt I should speak up.
Consider this:
1. A servicemember who is diagnosed with PTSD is very likely to receive some level of compensation in the form of a disability rating by the Veteran’s Administration. This translates into at best compensation, and at least a certain percentage of non-taxable income.
2. A servicemember who receives a Purple Heart can be of two varieties — wounded or killed in action. Actually it’s bit more complex than that and the criteria can be found here http://www.tioh.hqda.pentagon.mil/awards/ph1.html. However, a Purple Heart does NOT translate into disability benefits nor any other additional VA benefits.
My point is that servicemembers who are diagnosed with PTSD do in fact receive recognition, whether it be in the form of benefits, or an honorable discharge, or a service award at the time of separation. However, a servicemember who receives a Purple Heart, under the present criteria, are not entitled to any additional benefits (nor are their survivors).
Over my years of service, I observed how the significance and honor of military awards were diluted. Hopefully, this is not the case with the Purple Heart, as well as the Medal of Honor. By the way, I see so many people refer to the Medal of Honor as the Congressional Medal of Honor (CMH). The proper name is Medal of Honor (http://www.tioh.hqda.pentagon.mil/awards/ph1.html)
Also there are people who would play the system (not mentioning John Kerry by name), thus cheapening the Purple Heart for all recipients.