While watching the “Talking Heads” address the Russian hacking scandal through the prism of partisan politics, it struck me that much the same language is used by the VA when discussing the treatment of Veterans with PTSD.
While I have always thought that the proper use of language should be celebrated rather than used as a divisive instrument, I am very much bothered by the implications of blurring the meaning of words to suit one’s political ends.
Specifically, hacking DNC or private servers is very much different than “intervening” in the election process. Most, if not all, governments (including our own) hack foreign and often their own domestic communication’s networks.
While one can endlessly debate the ethics of hacking, it has been going on for centuries. It is simply a derivative of spying.
Using that purloined information to disrupt or interfere in our own or any other election process can most certainly be construed as an aggressive act.
The point here is that the act of “hacking” and “weaponizing the information” from that hack are two very different subjects. Blurring the meaning and intent of these two very separate activities is cause for alarm. Specifically, it introduces a number of conflicting and non-related elements into the equation that cannot be properly analyzed. Formulating an “appropriate response” will even be more difficult.
The intent here is not to discussing Russian hacking, but to show how the use of language can be used to create a distorted view of the efficacy of various VA programs to treat Veterans with PTSD and TBI.
Specifically, there is huge difference between the following statements:
The VA is treating Veterans with PTSD;
The VA is treating Veterans for the symptoms of PTSD.
As Maj. Ben Richards eloquently points out, there is no evidence that VA-prescribed therapies have “healed” or resulted in any significant improvement to Veterans suffering from PTSD and TBI.
Clearly, treating the symptoms of PTSD and TBI is quite a bit different than restoring brain function and permanently improving the physical and mental condition of military Veterans suffering from PTSD.
In effect, current VA programs seem to be designed to help Veterans cope with the side-effects of PTSD and TBI (i.e. depression, suicidal thoughts, alienation, etc.) rather than cure the underlying problem. In many cases, we have seen that lethal combinations of prescription drugs have had the opposite effect.
The semantics of VA administrators stating that they are “treating PTSD” rather than “coping with the symptoms of PTSD” is not a trivial distinction. In fact, there seems to be little evidence that the VA has provided Veterans with a clear path to restore some level of normalcy in their everyday life.
Clearly, with VA consultants like Dr. David Cifu suggesting unorthodox practices to deal with “concussive events” that no one in the medical profession seems to support, it is not surprising that the Veteran treatment outcomes have been so poor.
While there is clearly a need to help Veterans cope with the myriad of frightening symptoms that emanate from PTSD and TBI, we urgently need benchmarks to help provide Veterans with a path to recovery.
As long as a disproportionate amount of money is spent by the VA on drugs and ineffective therapy programs to deal with the behavioral symptoms of PTSD and TBI, then Veterans will be shortchanged by the organization responsible for their care.
With new leadership on the horizon at the VA, SFTT remains hopeful that Veteran trust in the VA will be restored and that the organization will be purged of the toxic leadership of Dr. David Cifu and others who defend the status quo. Our Veterans and those in the military are not well served by these corrosive and divisive administrators.