Amputee soldiers return to active duty
The Quaker Agitator notes the changing military policy on injured soldiers. From the Yahoo story:
Previously, a soldier who lost a limb almost automatically received a quick discharge, a disability check and an appointment with the Veterans Administration.Yeah, I hate the Iraq war and Bush is a liar I want impeached. But I don't automatically see this as bad. It's problematic for oh so many reasons, but continuing to employ people who might otherwise join the ranks of the unemployed disabled seems better to me than simply discharging them and leaving them to fend for themselves.
But since the start of the Iraq war, the military has begun holding on to amputees, treating them in rehab programs like the one here at Fort Sam Houston and promising to help them return to active duty if that is what they want.
"The mindset of our Army has changed, to the extent that we realize the importance of all our soldiers and what they can contribute to our Army. Someone who loses a limb is still a very valuable asset," said Lt. Col. Kevin Arata, a spokesman for the Army's Human Resources Command at the Pentagon.
Also, just as advances in battlefield medicine have boosted survival rates among the wounded, better prosthetics and treatment regimens have improved amputees' ability to regain mobility.
So far, the Army has treated nearly 600 service members who have come back from Iraq or Afghanistan without an arm, leg, hand or foot. Thirty-one have gone back to active duty, and no one who asked to remain in the service has been discharged, Arata said.
Most of those who return to active duty are assigned to instructor or desk jobs away from combat. Only a few — the Army doesn't keep track of exactly how many — have returned to the war zone, and only at their insistence, Arata said.
What do you think?
Link courtesy of reader Jo.
7 comments:
Well, as long as the soldiers are willing & able to do the job why not? At least the Army is willing to let them make the choice, rather than saying 'thanks but no thanks.'
As a mostly pacifist, it is hard for me to think of anything good about war at all, and you know how completely enraged I am about our current engagements overseas. Also, when I hear about things like this, I can't help but think of M*A*S*H episodes where the doctors would freak out because they were fixing kids up just so they could go out and kill some more and probably get killed for real themselves.
That said, I think this is just technology and history completing a circle, and I agree that it's not necessarily bad. Admiral Nelson lost sight in one eye and then an arm, never left active duty, and died in the Napoleonic wars. This was not unusual for career soldiers until the 20th century. So while I understand that [a] lost limb[s] should be more than enough of a sacrifice from anyone who didn't enlist, I think this is good news for career soldiers or soldiers serving voluntarily. I also think draftees, which comprised many of the soldiers in the wars of the 20th century, might have a different opinion about being asked to buck up, strap on, and go back out and fight some more, and rightfully so. Fortunately, for now, this is not an issue.
I hear over and over again how hard it is for many soldiers to leave their units, either for injury or because they've simply mustered out. This is why many re-up when their tours are over. Even Tammy Duckworth has said she'd like to go back and fight with her unit; she won't need her legs to fly helicopters, after all. It's a very tight, intimate experience, and people feel like they're abandoning each other if they don't stay and help as long as they are physically able.
I'm also always very happy to see anything that proves that amputation is a big sucky boo-boo but not necessarily the end of someone's life. The technology to "normalize" an amputee's life is not available for everyone because of its expense and insurance companies being legally allowed to set caps on how much they will pay even for people who have coverage. The military is one place where this does not apply, and it shouldn't apply, since it's also one of the career paths most likely to include amputation as an on-the-job injury.
The irony must not escape us, though, that since so much of the technology we have to "normalize" amputee life comes as a result of the increasingly terrible cost of modern war, its aftermath and detritus, one could almost consider many of these advances just an extension of military technology. I do find it somewhat chilling to view them in this light when considering that they will now in fact be used to extend our investment in each soldier to cover a greater term of utility.
Sara: Yes, yes, yes. So well said.
I think it matters greatly whether or not the military requires them to return to work, requires them to return to combat. But offering it as an option means they will also get from that place in the hospital back among people they know and a work culture they know and understand. A big problem if, for example, there's also PTSD that goes untreated, but if committing to keep a soldier employed means committing to all the accommodations and retraining needed after an injury, well, I find that to be one small good amidst the tragedy of this war that must be ended.
I don't think that this is necessarily an advancement for people with disabilities because the Army or military services for that matter will still not accept anyone-including amputees- who ALREADY has a disability and wants to serve. I can't understand the difference with someone without a limb at birth or as a result of some incident other then war and someone with the same level of disability but just acquired as a result of war. Many of the injured soldiers' stories I've seen have returned to service in a completely different sector-requiring retraining. So, how would HOW someone lost a limb matter in training? I think this is more of a propaganda/effort to make reparations for the soldiers' injuries than an actual change in the military's thoughts on disability.
Thanks for asking what I thought!
~Kara Sheridan
http://karasheridan.com
Wow, Kara, that's a really good point.
Of course, having a horrible, cynical mind, the first thing that popped into my head after I read it (besides "Wow, good point") was a vision of a not-too-distant future when amputees will join the military just to get the "free" high-tech prosthetics -- you know, like the college tuition and complimentary messenger bag I saw advertised just the other day.
And Kay, you make a great point about PTSD and other injuries not so obvious as amputation, and it reminded me again of Nelson whose severe head injury (not the one that took the use of that eye, a different one; goodness knows how many he sustained over the course of his career) has been credited among other things with what is regarded as questionable management of his Neapolitan campaign.
Reading that at Wikipedia made me wonder how many wartime decisions are made by the head-injured, and what that might mean. I am not just an amputee but also a 25-year survivor of a closed head injury, and I know the latter has caused me all kinds of difficulty no one would even guess if I didn't tell them but that might have far more potential to impact others than my status as an amputee. For example, aside from the fact that my memory is crappy and getting crappier as I age, sometimes I just cannot think of words I know very well. This, naturally, affects my ability to communicate, especially under pressure.
Imagine if I were a military figure and meant to tell my troops to retreat but couldn't think of the word "retreat."
"Tell them to - to - Damn! What's the word I'm thinking of? Re- re- re- Revise? Remorse? Regurgitate? Give me a minute; I'll think of it. Let me just think of something else and it'll come to me..."
Heh. I can joke about it, because I will never be put in such a situation. But thinking about it sure does make me wonder, about a lot of things.
So, how would HOW someone lost a limb matter in training? I think this is more of a propaganda/effort to make reparations for the soldiers' injuries than an actual change in the military's thoughts on disability.
I agree, Kara, that's there's definitely a serious dose of propaganda on the military's behalf, but as Sara points out, war has been a major cause of disability -- and technology for solutions to impairments. So there's a sick relationship there to begin with, of hiring the nondisabled, giving them impairments, then abandoning them while medical technology is simultaneously given a market and drive for things like better prosthetics.
But. While I wish there were non-military ways for everyone, disabled people included, to serve their countries in a government-sponsored sense, I do see this as a positive development, however limited and politically motivated it is. I see this as more of a "taking care of their own" than any equal opportunity thing, so there's limited utility for disability rights there, that's very true.
"Tell them to - to - Damn! What's the word I'm thinking of? Re- re- re- Revise? Remorse? Regurgitate?
Sara: Actually, this might be a plausible explanation for the political mess we're in. Strategery, anyone?
Yes, indeed. And don't forget, there are many ways to injure the brain besides being clobbered upside the head.
Protracted abuse of alcohol and other controlled substances does spring to mind as one very reliable method. Of course, I can't think of a single politician off the top of my head who might have done anything like that to [him/her]self, ever, can you? (insert broad wink here)
Post a Comment