Mental Illness and Military Service - Essay Example

Abstract

The paper considers the problem of mental illness and military service from the perspective of military officers and veterans’ suffering from mental disorders in the result of their military involvement. Three theories are applied to explain the cause of the issue: Modified Labeling theory, attachment theory, and attribution theory. The paper also examines the Family Advocacy Program as an intervention able to prevent domestic abuse, treat military officers and assist their families’ overcoming of related stress. It is concluded in the paper that the change of society’s approach to the problem can contribute to military officers and veterans’ consultations with psychologists without a fear of stigmatization.

Keywords: mental illness, military service, theory, treatment program.

Mental Illness and Military Service

Introduction and Description

The system of military service with officers’ constant involvement into tough events and witnessing atrocities inevitably leads to mental illnesses of the military staff. Here it must be said that both young officers and commanders with experience can suffer from mental disorders, for it is a state of their psyche that defines their ability to cope with stress or fail to. The same as in the last century, the current situation of the US military mental illnesses is indicative of the fact that military service is associated with mental health issues in a very direct way. American military stuff’s life is challenged by numerous mental illnesses, which can be improved with the help of the Family Advocacy Program and other approaches to the problem displayed by historic and current researches.

Epidemiology

The connection between military service and mental health is known quite a while, yet when World War I pushed people to face terrors of war, which left their mark in their memory and psyche for a long time, if not forever. Then, World War II, the Vietnam War, and other great conflicts continued to produce negative effects on the mental health of soldiers. It is obvious that this refers to the United States, as it was among other countries, which officers suffered and suffer from mental health conditions. Thus, the problem of military service’s contribution to officers’ mental illness asserts itself through the number of American officers and veterans affected by psychological disabilities. In particular, the years after the end of the Vietnam War showed a significant percentage of military officers’ mental disturbances, Thus, “…13% of all military hospitalizations and 28% of all military hospital bed days from 1990 to 1999 were due to mental disorders, and nearly half of those with a first time mental disorder hospitalization separated from military service within 6 months” (Riddle, Smith, Smith, Corbeil, Engel, Wells, Hoge, Adkins, Zamorski, & Blazerg, 2007, p. 193).

Clearly, the US military officers are vulnerable to mental illnesses due to their participation in military conflicts specified by the enemies’ mercilessness and cruelty. In this respect, the most vivid examples are veterans who returned from Afghanistan’s operation enduring freedom (OEF) and Iraq’s operation Iraqi freedom (OIF). “Of 103 788 OEF/OIF veterans first seen at VA [Veterans Health Administration] health care facilities following OEF/OIF service, a quarter received mental health diagnoses, and more than half of these veterans were dually or multiply diagnosed” (Seal, Bertenthal, Miner, Sen, &Marmar, 2007, p. 479). Such an aspect speaks about the complicated nature of OEF/OIF veterans’ mental illnesses, as they show several symptoms at the same time. Either can be perceived as a separate mental health issue. So, officers involved in military conflicts, which are a part of their military service, are a population at risk to become victims of mental disorders.

Etiology

Three theories can be applied to explain the cause of military service’s relation to mental illnesses of officers: Modified Labeling theory, attachment theory, and attribution theory. More specifically, Modified Labeling theory allows tracing the connection between the military’s psychological disorders and the public opinion. Thus, officers’ visits to psychologists can be seen by people as a sign of their spinelessness, which, in turn, reflects on their image as courageous men or women able to protect their country from enemies. In such a context, officers’ labeling as cyborgs, which have no feelings, emotions or mental health problems, results in their unwillingness to consult a psychologist even if they feel they need the professional help to address their thought disorders. This fact is also confirmed by attribution theory. Notably, the research of Greene-Shortridge, Britt, and Castro (2007) showed that “…individuals with psychological problems were seen as more responsible for their difficulties than those with physical problems and that attributions of controllability were related to decreased pity and increased anger toward the individual possessing the problem” (p. 158). This applies to military officers as well: they are seen as more responsible for their psychological problems than officers with bodily injuries. At the same time, the mentally ill military’s consultations with psychologists for help are interpreted as their weakness, as opposed to those with physical problems. Hence, such a perception significantly contributes to their mental illnesses’ becoming graver, which diminishes their chances to heal without any long-lasting consequences for their mental health. In such a manner, Modified Labeling and attribution theories display that the public labeling causes epidemiology of military mental illnesses.

Attachment theory is another theory that illustrates the role of society in military officers’ suffering from mental disorders. Significantly, those people who experienced the effects of the military’s mental illnesses can perceive the latter as threatening their safety. This can ultimately result in mentally ill officers’ stigmatization by society (Monson, Taft, & Fredman, 2009, p. 710). So, military officers suffering from specific psychological disorders do not consult a psychologist just to give a good account of themselves. That way, they defer their treatment. This aspect, in turn, minimizes mentally ill military officers’ chances to overcome negative feelings and emotions yet at early stages and thus improve their mental health. The latter aspect displays the cause of military officers’ experiencing mental disorders and its dependence on society’s contribution to the problem.

Historic and Recent Research

Historical Description

Society’s stigmatization of mentally ill military officers also finds its reflection in their subjective treatment in the military itself. The whole thing is that mental disturbance of any nature and any severity serves as a factor indicative of officers’ abnormality. The latter deprives them of any possibility to build the military career, which, in turn, pushes them to keep their mental problems in secret. As it becomes obvious from the research of Ransom and Gunderson (1965), “…mental ill health was incompatible with either rapid or routine advancement in the Navy’s occupational structure” (p. 452). The example illustrated the power of mental problems to thwart officers’ plans to rise through the ranks to general. That is why the officers could avoid consulting professionals just to succeed in their military career. By doing so, they only added to their mental health’s aggravation and decreased their chances to address mental problems. Hence, the historical description proves the fact that the problem asserted itself yet in the 20th century.

Current Description

The 21st century, in turn, shows that the problem of military officers’ suffering from mental illnesses continues to challenge their lives. Moreover, military officers still interpret mental health treatment in a negative way, primarily due to their public image as resistant to any hardships. In this regard, the research of Vogt (2011) brings evidence of the military’s biased attitude to mental illness and mental health treatment: “Because of the high value placed on emotional strength in the military, including, for example, the ability to ‘tough out’ difficult emotions, military and veteran populations may be more susceptible than civilians to negative beliefs about mental illness and mental health treatment” (p. 136). That is to say, military officers and veterans postpone their treatment just because of their belief in the need to be strong and stable in the public’s eyes. In fact, they contribute to their ill mental health, as they miss the right moment to address their problems. In many cases, the deterioration in mental health causes sufferings not only to military officers but also to their families and society as a whole.

Description of the US National Program of Military Mental Illnesses

The Family Advocacy Program is one of the US national programs designed to improve military officers and veterans’ mental health via their treatment and involvement with their families. As a matter of fact, the military’s family members very often become victims of the military’s mental unbalance’s manifestations. At the same time, relatives are the inner circle of mentally ill officers and veterans, which is of a great importance for their self-identification as well as for their sense of pacification. So, the Family Advocacy Program works with the military families both for their climate’s improvement and military officers’ overcoming of mental illnesses in the context of their support by relatives. In this regard, Lawhorne-Scott and Philpott (2013) argue, “Family advocacy is an identification, intervention, and treatment program – not a punishment system” (p. 85). The intervention program is based on clinical assessment of mentally ill officers and their treatment, which is accompanied by services designed for them and their families (Lawhorne-Scott, & Philpott, 2013, p. 86). It serves as a program that prevents domestic abuse via constant comprehensive work on mental illnesses’ addressing. The US family advocacy’s stuff provides families with professional psychological help and control over the patients’ actions to assist their overcoming of mental conflicts and their families’ safety. Hence, the intervention is aimed at the improvement of the climate within the military families via their mentally disturbed military members’ treatment.

Conclusion

The above-mentioned information suggests that public opinion and military officers’ aspiration to build up the military career are those obstacles that interfere with progress on the issue. The public perception of the military as tough pushes officers to avoid psychological help in the context of their suffering from mental disorders. Military officers’ plan to rise through the ranks defines their keeping mental illnesses in secret. In both cases, they minimize officers’ chances to cope with the problem via timely treatment. So, to enhance timely treatment of mentally ill officers, society is to encourage the military to identify psychological disorders, not to prevent their consultation with psychologists.

Thus, it is society’s approach to the issue that must be changed to contribute to mentally ill military’s healing. In this respect, people’s perception of officers and veterans’ psychological disorders as quite normal for their profession seems to be the main beneficial condition. Needless to say, some positive conditions already exist. People’s concern about the issue is one of them, for it is able to promote positive changes in society’s approach to the problem of military officers and veterans’ procrastination in such an urgent matter as timely psychological help. However, the general concern proves its greater effects on the problem’s solution. So, it must be the target number one.