E03: Critical Reading- thesilentbutdeadlycineman

Analyzing Some PTSD Claims from the Article
“Is PTSD Contagious?”

“In 2006, the British Ministry of Defence pardoned some 300 soldiers who had been executed for cowardice and desertion during World War I, having concluded that many were probably just crippled by PTSD.”

• Some 300 soldiers out of how many?
•  Although it can be guessed that they belong to Britain, the article doesn’t explicitly indicate that the pardoned soldiers were from that country.
• How could the British Ministry of Defence tell which of the many soldiers actually suffered from PTSD, and which were very much cowards and deserters?
• “Probably just crippled by PTSD” is not a strong conclusion. There is no indication that the Ministry actually did any scientific research to come to this general conclusion. How did they decide that PTSD was the probable cause?
• This doesn’t completely have to do with the comment, but I would like to know how the country dealt with soldiers suffering from PTSD during World War II.

” Granted, diagnosing PTSD is a tricky thing. The result of a malfunctioning nervous system that fails to normalize after trauma and instead perpetrates memories and misfires life-or-death for no practical reason, it comes in a couple of varieties, various complexities, has causes ranging from one lightning fast event to drawn-out terrors or patterns of abuse- in soldiers, the incidence of PTSD goes up with the number of tours experienced.”

•  Based ON how many soldiers has the incidence of PTSD gone up with the number of experienced tours?
• Having the words “varieties” and “various,” both of which are spanning from the same root meaning, bothers me.
• The author is saying that it is hard to get any conclusive information about PTSD. And yet they finish by factually saying that soldiers experience PTSD based ON the number of tours they have.
• What are the “couple of varieties,” “various complexities,” and “causes”? I would like specific examples to illustrate the point!

“The Army has rules about that sort of thing now. Now if you’re knocked unconscious, or have double vision, or exhibit other signs of a brain injury, you have to rest for a certain period of time, but that rule didn’t go into effect in theater until 2010, after Caleb was already out of the service.”

• The author says that the Army has rules pertaining to a traumatic brain injury, and yet right after, they only state one rule-“to rest for a certain period of time.”
• “to rest for a certain period of time,” is the best that the Army could come up with to deal with a traumatic brain injury?
• Having one sentence end in “now,” and another begin with “Now” right next to each other bothers me.
• What was the Army recommending the soldiers do for brain injuries before 2010?
• What does “didn’t go into effect in theater” mean? Is it a synonym to “taking center stage”?

“In one study, the incidence of secondary trauma in wives of Croatian war vets with PTSD was 30 percent. In another study there, it was 39 percent.”

• How many wives took part in the studies?
• How were both studies different? Did they use a different number of wives? Were the studies conducted by different institutions? Why is there such a difference in the percentages?

“I asked the lead scientist, Marinus van IJzendoorn of Leiden University, what might account for other studies’ finding of secondary trauma in vets’ spouses or kids. He said he’s never analyzed those studies, and wonders if the result would hold up to a meta-analysis.”

• Why include the lead scientist in the argument when he hasn’t analyzed the studies pertaining to it?!
• As a lead scientist in this field of study, shouldn’t he have already taken note of every possible related factor, and had pretty researched answers as to why they take place?

“Holocaust survivors ‘had more resources and networks, wider family members and community to support them to adapt to their new circumstances after a war.’ They were not, in other words, expected to man up and get over it.”

• I am no history major, but weren’t most of the Holocaust survivors Jewish, who after the war, had to learn that most of their brethren and families had perished during that harsh period of time? What wide family members and community were there after the war? I believe that most of the survivors found themselves alone after all the fighting had ended.
• How focused were the Allied powers on helping out the Holocaust survivors? I would think that they would be more focused on giving Germany some punishment and dealing with issues much greater than taking care of Holocaust survivors (much like how veterans were treated after they returned to the US following World War I). Basically, the survivors were expected to “man up and get over it.”