PTSD. An article rejected by "American Psychologist"

[bluedeathray]

"Psychologists have an obligation to provide a full measure of options for addressing soldier distress including those that might encourage release from service. Psychologists also have an ethical obligation to question the rationale by a sponsoring organization, the armed services, for exposing the soldier recipients of psychological services to unwarranted risks of preventable wars. Application of positive psychology to resilience training in the current military system fails to meet these responsibilities."

http://www.projectcensored.org/psychology-and-the-prevention-of-war-trauma-an-article-rejected-by-american-psychologist/

[JimboBillyBubbaBob]

1. Thanks for the link.

I read the entire journal piece and it has provided me with much to think about as I tackle the last, hopefully, of the mountains of leaves that make up my yard. In a pure sense, I see what the authors are noting in their work. Excuse me while I leave to tackle the leaves.

[Mojorabbit]

2. K and R nt

[BlancheSplanchnik]

3. woa. pages 4 and 5 of the paper...

No wonder "American Psychologist" refected it!

Naming the corporate, gov't and military interests in wars for greed as opposed to the narrative we like to believe (patriotic war as the last resort in conflicts)?

Can't promise I'll get to reading the rest, but having a quick look just now was an eye-opener.

[dougolat]

4. Good read! Patching up traumatized soldiers so they can go get more is a long term disaster,

excused in the name of a noble cause; yet the cause is hardly noble, and the aftermath is killing more than the "war" itself, not to mention the families.

The despair and anger of veterans who feel misused and mistreated is not something to trifle with.