The Antidepressant War
The article I am commenting on is taken from:
TIME Magazine [The U.S. Military’s Secret Weapon]
The article I am commenting on is taken from:
TIME Magazine [The U.S. Military’s Secret Weapon]
June 16, 2008
Pg 24 - 28
By Mark Thompson
America’s Medicated Army
Synopsis
The article reports the rising use of medications among the American army with a sizable strength of 20,000 troops, according to statistics. Medications are issued for the first time in military history as antidepressants to deal with PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) on the battlefield, raising serious concerns and heated debates among the people.
While some may produce side-effects that render the troops unsuitable for warfare, others are effective only as short term treatment, bringing about negative effects on the troops’ mental health. Statistics show rising broken marriages, psychiatric breakdowns and suicide rates alongside increased drug use, and experts are beginning to link them with drug dependency and effectiveness.
Here, the topic of “fair” warfare (ironic, but true) comes into question. Why are troops forced to undergo medication on the battlefield, while still at the frontline? The fact that they are kept on the battlefield despite their mental health condition shows the U.S military’s concern of winning wars and saving money on deploying replacements as a higher priority than the troops’ mental welfare.
Commentary
The main argument would be whether armies should be allowed to consume antidepressants pills. The views in the article presented by experts in favour of the Army are not extremely reliable as they mostly stem from a small group of people. There are two differing schools of thought in response to the use of military medication on the battlefield.
Firstly, proposing views include one expressed by Colonel E. Cameron Ritchie. She feels that the soldiers’ jobs would be inconvenienced by rendering the drug unsuitable since PTSD is common to battlefield soldiers. Given no adverse effects, implementing routine SSRIS treatment has helped to destigmatize mental problems. William Winkenwerder Jr., Pentagon’s ex-top doctor, backs this up by saying that he believes good clinical decisions are made.
On the other hand, most people oppose the use of medication due to the negative implications brought onto the soldiers, as mentioned in the synopsis.
My response to this article is that the mental wellbeing of the soldiers and winning the war are equally important. Why anyone should engage in taking antidepressants is unfathomable. Doesn’t the cost of winning the war include the detrimental effect to the soldiers’ wellbeing with the use of antidepressant medication?
Firstly, the mental health and welfare of the soldiers deteriorates with the frequent deployments to war. Soldiers’ memories are ‘stained’ with the images of massacre. Regardless of the drugs they take, the fact remains that they had once been traumatized. It takes time, not solely medication, for the soldiers to recuperate from war and let the trauma dull off.
Their performance is further affected with deprived sleep while on the battlefield. The US military uses medication to boost their soldiers’ functioning capacity which has a detrimental effect on their welfare and health. Though the troops might be able to perform for the initial deployment with medication, their performance would never be at its peak or last through subsequent redeployments. Take for example the Vietnam War. The pills had helped the Army last till the end but not achieve victory for the war.
The officials could constantly replace frontline troops to reduce the harmful psychological effects though keeping soldiers constantly deployed saves deploying replacements costs. Rejuvenated soldiers could achieve peak performance and in turn reduce military cost with increased productivity.
Secondly, it is the pills that unleash their wrath during war instead of the soldiers’ skills. Would it be fair to wage such a war on poorer countries where antidepressant pills are scarce? What would become of the world?
This being said, it does not mean that we should totally stamp out the usage of antidepressant drugs on the battlefield. It should be used depending on circumstances, rather than as routine treatment, and with considerable dosage control to prevent ultimate dependence on the antidepressant pills.
I conclude that the consumption of antidepressant drugs should be regulated strictly on the battlefield. Adequate and immediate attention must also be given to those who need help.
America’s Medicated Army
Synopsis
The article reports the rising use of medications among the American army with a sizable strength of 20,000 troops, according to statistics. Medications are issued for the first time in military history as antidepressants to deal with PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) on the battlefield, raising serious concerns and heated debates among the people.
While some may produce side-effects that render the troops unsuitable for warfare, others are effective only as short term treatment, bringing about negative effects on the troops’ mental health. Statistics show rising broken marriages, psychiatric breakdowns and suicide rates alongside increased drug use, and experts are beginning to link them with drug dependency and effectiveness.
Here, the topic of “fair” warfare (ironic, but true) comes into question. Why are troops forced to undergo medication on the battlefield, while still at the frontline? The fact that they are kept on the battlefield despite their mental health condition shows the U.S military’s concern of winning wars and saving money on deploying replacements as a higher priority than the troops’ mental welfare.
Commentary
The main argument would be whether armies should be allowed to consume antidepressants pills. The views in the article presented by experts in favour of the Army are not extremely reliable as they mostly stem from a small group of people. There are two differing schools of thought in response to the use of military medication on the battlefield.
Firstly, proposing views include one expressed by Colonel E. Cameron Ritchie. She feels that the soldiers’ jobs would be inconvenienced by rendering the drug unsuitable since PTSD is common to battlefield soldiers. Given no adverse effects, implementing routine SSRIS treatment has helped to destigmatize mental problems. William Winkenwerder Jr., Pentagon’s ex-top doctor, backs this up by saying that he believes good clinical decisions are made.
On the other hand, most people oppose the use of medication due to the negative implications brought onto the soldiers, as mentioned in the synopsis.
My response to this article is that the mental wellbeing of the soldiers and winning the war are equally important. Why anyone should engage in taking antidepressants is unfathomable. Doesn’t the cost of winning the war include the detrimental effect to the soldiers’ wellbeing with the use of antidepressant medication?
Firstly, the mental health and welfare of the soldiers deteriorates with the frequent deployments to war. Soldiers’ memories are ‘stained’ with the images of massacre. Regardless of the drugs they take, the fact remains that they had once been traumatized. It takes time, not solely medication, for the soldiers to recuperate from war and let the trauma dull off.
Their performance is further affected with deprived sleep while on the battlefield. The US military uses medication to boost their soldiers’ functioning capacity which has a detrimental effect on their welfare and health. Though the troops might be able to perform for the initial deployment with medication, their performance would never be at its peak or last through subsequent redeployments. Take for example the Vietnam War. The pills had helped the Army last till the end but not achieve victory for the war.
The officials could constantly replace frontline troops to reduce the harmful psychological effects though keeping soldiers constantly deployed saves deploying replacements costs. Rejuvenated soldiers could achieve peak performance and in turn reduce military cost with increased productivity.
Secondly, it is the pills that unleash their wrath during war instead of the soldiers’ skills. Would it be fair to wage such a war on poorer countries where antidepressant pills are scarce? What would become of the world?
This being said, it does not mean that we should totally stamp out the usage of antidepressant drugs on the battlefield. It should be used depending on circumstances, rather than as routine treatment, and with considerable dosage control to prevent ultimate dependence on the antidepressant pills.
I conclude that the consumption of antidepressant drugs should be regulated strictly on the battlefield. Adequate and immediate attention must also be given to those who need help.
