Canadian troops more likely to have experienced childhood abuse, violence: study

Interesting and to think that we always thought the depression and suicides were caused by a lack of proper care by the Government and sights or acts that would curdle the blood of civilians.

I'm sorry but this is far to simplistic an excuse and seems to forget that for generations children have received corporal punishment as a standard without the same disastrous results to the children that our troops are suffering. I'd also like to know the differential per capita between civilian suicides and depression in people who were "abused" and military personnel because my guess it'd be alot less.

So, if this study is actually factual and not just another excuse to explain away a problem caused by numerous federal governments lack of care for their military personnel, will we have to stop training the troops in the "warrior" mentality or risk destroying their psyche because, we definitely wouldn't want a military that's violent killing other people who are violent?

The only thing I might believe is that the military is more attractive to kids who were spanked because they understand discipline and consequences unlike most kids who weren't.

Are you calling this corporal punishment? You can see the detritus among civilians who experience childhood abuse and neglect (neglect is often forgotten but is actually more damaging) - the drunks and druggies, the chronically violent and so on. There won't be a differential between civilian and military who have been abused and depression/suicide, would be by guess. What this study is pointing to is that people who experienced abuse in childhood are more likely to join the military - the military attracts people like this. And then there's diathesis/stress. The childhood abuse predisposes somebody for depression and other mental problems, then the stress of military experiences can push someone like that beyond their breaking point. (not that someone who was never abused can't be pushed beyond their breaking point either.




Study seems to be about a lot more than just kids who got the odd mild spanking.





One thing that nobody seems to want to acknowledge is that childhood abuse can cause PTSD all on it's own. Put somebody like that into the stress of battle and kapow.


Everybody's born a civilian. You see to imply that soldiers are somehow tougher at dealing with sights or acts. The PTSD numbers show they have just a strong reaction to what they experience as any civilian would. Also, there are plenty of civilians around who have seen just as much bad stuff as soldiers have, only they likely would have felt even more helpless than the soldiers, had no ability to fight back. The soldiers who push it all down and get numbed out, those are the ones to really worry about, assuming they're still functioning at that point.

I'm not calling that corporal punishment anymore than you're calling spanking abuse.



Anybody who lumps children who were "spanked" more than 3 times with any child who was genuinely abused makes me suspect that these findings might have less to do with finding a real cause as promoting a politically correct line of thought.




Of course it's important simply because to treat any mental illness you have to get to the all the causes but, where I find fault is that they're abrogating the real cause in favour of something that they can pinpoint, control in short it's a simplistic excuse for the problems.

How the fuck would a military function if you said well, these people are going to come back damaged so we can't put them in those situations. Won't work bur hey why don't we blame combat fatigue, PTSD and depression on their childhood because, it sounds considerably better than saying they're cracking up because of to many deployments to a combat zone, watching their friends die in their arms, killing people and living like animals for extended periods of time.





Nobody's denying stress doesn't have anything to with the issue but put how do you propose they fix the problem. Stop enlisting anyone who was spanked or genuinely abused? The problem is and always has been the effects of combat on an individual nothing more nothing less and laying the blame at the foot of childhood abuse is a great way to get to some of the issues for treatment but has zero effect on a cure for the problem.




The Military is trained or used to be trained to be hard asses and follow orders blindly in combat because your life depends on it. We were broken down both mentally and physically then reshaped unlike Civilians. Even the police and fire fighters don't get the mental training that the military does so saying everyone was born a civilian has nothing to do with the problem because the people we're discussing long ago gave up their civilian mentality so it's like comparing apples to oranges. The only thing they have in common is the fact that they were born and were children abuse, spanked or not.

But here's the million dollar question. How did millions of WWI, WWII and Korean war vet's manage to live productive and useful lives without the after effects that the years of combat are causing these later generations? Is it just because all those vets pushed it down like you say which I find hard to believe because we'd have had alot more issues than we did after those wars or, is it because for whatever reason they were alot tougher mentally than we are?

Those old vets did push it down. Most were very reluctant to talk about it. The other diff is that they weren't "oddballs" in the sense that so many men and even women went to war - it was normal. They were treated with respect when they returned and the govt looked after them well. And it's not as if they all just came out OK - it just wasn't talked about. The drinking, the abuse of wives and children, suicides etc. There was just a piece about this - I think maybe for remembrance day, with children of these men talking about how fucked up they were (by no means all) and just suffered in silence because in those days people didn't talk about it. They just weren't the same afterwards.

As for the military training you, no doubt. Maybe it helps a bit. I don't think this training really prepares you for the awful stuff tho. It just makes you follow orders and deal with it later. As we are saying.

I don't think there is a way to fix the problem, really. Was has got to fuck you up. We could certainly offer enlistees counselling before they ever go to war - get over the tough guy image and have the military accept that many of it's people start off damaged to some degree. And then of course provide much better care for returning vets. And yes, unless we are actually under attack in Canada, don't keep sending overstretched troops into battle for political points both nationally and internationally.

I'm not sure you and I are that far apart here, in part because I'm not sure what you are saying. The study is what it is. Look at the numbers for spanking in the study - that tells you most people these days are not raised that way. I don't disagree at all that the "cause" is the combat itself. That doesn't mean that factors that play a role in reaction to combat should be ignored. Very important to have all the facts for treatment. None of it absolves the military of anything. For the govt to say "well you came in damaged, so we don't owe you anything" would be beyond despicable. Not that that would mean it couldn't happen.

I suspect that in many cases people just didn't see the effects the same way. How many of those vets drank too much? Or were abusive at home? Or any number of other symptoms of mental distress? It just wasn't looked at the same way back then. Nor was it tracked the way it is now. I imagine there is a fairly constant percentage of vets who suffer for years but it's only in the last decade or so that we see it for what it is.

I personally hope they use every tool in the box to help fix these guys and if that include seeing if they had problems as a kid fine.

But, what scares me is that if they can prove this might be a major cause of the problems these kids are having then they're going to start claiming the mental health issues are related to childhood abuse which, gives the DVA ammunition to refuse or reduce claims because of a previous condition and if you don't think that's hasn't already crossed some bureaucrats mind then you don't know the DVA.

These guys are fuqued because of what they've seen and done not what their childhoods held. Their childhoods may have played a part in their mental makeup but, it sure as hell isn't the primary cause of these problems and if the shrinks and military hierarchy can't figure that out then these kids are in for even a worse ride than they've already been on.

Well, I hope you're wrong. Like I say, that would be despicable. It's not even a good argument - if these guys are fucked up before joining, then it's incumbent on the military to not let them join. Otherwise the military would be saying these guys are just cannon fodder.

People who've seen combat and have problems, you have to assume that combat is what did it. But, what about guys who have never been in combat? Surely there will be as many of those, or more, relatively speaking vs the general population. As far as I'm concerned the army still owes them care just as a business can't just fire somebody anymore who is having these sorts of problems.





Actually I'm not sure the writer did his research here: http://www.cmha.ca/media/fast-facts-about-mental-illness/#.VOLW-vnF9K0 Sounds like the military exactly matches the population.

You'd have to think that since the Military is a microcosom of society that the numbers would be pretty consistent so that shouldn't come as a surprise. As for the people who haven't seen combat and are suffering from depression or PTSD it'd hazard a guess that it's got more to do with being burned out, overworked under appreciated and mistreated all in an toxic environment than just childhood issues.

You also can't weed out all the people with issues when recruiting especially if they hide them. They used to ask every recruit if he did drugs and if they found one stupid enough to admit to smoking dope they'd ask him again and again till he got the message that he hadn't smoked dope. So to expect the recruiting standards to become more stringent would be a bit of a pipe dream especially since they can't get people in the first place.

In one way it's to bad that they've placed such a high regard on education rather than on the person enlisting because, they're missing out on a shitload of good people who'd love nothing better than spend their entire career in the warm embrace of the military and instead they focus on signing some weenie who can do Boolean algebra in his sleep but can't tie his own boots without specific direction from his superior.

I suspect that in many cases people just didn't see the effects the same way. How many of those vets drank too much? Or were abusive at home? Or any number of other symptoms of mental distress? It just wasn't looked at the same way back then. Nor was it tracked the way it is now. I imagine there is a fairly constant percentage of vets who suffer for years but it's only in the last decade or so that we see it for what it is.

This. Hell, even in the 1970's the Police would refuse to intervene in Domestic disputes even if there were signs of physical abuse.