# Soldiers more likely to have experienced childhood abuse: study



## Tibbson (15 Feb 2015)

Canadian soldiers appear to be more likely than their civilian counterparts to have experienced abuse, including corporal punishment, or to have witnessed domestic violence as children, new research aimed at exploring the incidence of depression and suicide in the military suggests.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/soldiers-more-likely-to-have-experienced-childhood-abuse-study-1.2237375


----------



## Gunner98 (15 Feb 2015)

Most people born in 1960s and 70s were spanked as children (corporal punishment was a predominant form of discipline).  Using a percentage of soldiers does not equal a cross section of the Canadian population, but only those 18-60 years old in a to be clarified/defined socio-economic demographic. 

All soldiers who entered as untrained privates/recruits would have experienced "Corporal" punishment. ;D


----------



## GAP (15 Feb 2015)

Uh huh....why are we paying attention to crap 101?   :


----------



## Fishbone Jones (15 Feb 2015)

GAP said:
			
		

> Uh huh....why are we paying attention to crap 101?   :



 :goodpost:

Yup. Slow news day. No one cares.


----------



## daftandbarmy (15 Feb 2015)

Probably a marketing gimmick for 50 Shades of Grey


----------



## Shamrock (15 Feb 2015)

Alternately...

"Soldiers more likely to disclose trauma"


----------



## Kat Stevens (15 Feb 2015)

Shamrock said:
			
		

> Alternately...
> 
> "Soldiers more likely to disclose trauma"



Or even;
Soldiers more likely to be the lab rat du jour for social meddlers and academis.


----------



## OldSolduer (15 Feb 2015)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Or even;
> Soldiers more likely to be the lab rat du jour for social meddlers and academis.



It's been like that since I joined in 1974. And what makes it truly sad is many of our own like to experiment with us.


----------



## expwor (15 Feb 2015)

I wasn't spanked a lot as a kid, but there wasn't one spanking I got that I didn't deserve
It seems in this day and age there is more focus on time outs and other things like that for discipline.
If a parent now spanked their kid now, is that considered abuse?

Tom


----------



## Fishbone Jones (15 Feb 2015)

expwor said:
			
		

> I wasn't spanked a lot as a kid, but there wasn't one spanking I got that I didn't deserve
> It seems in this day and age there is more focus on time outs and other things like that for discipline.
> If a parent now spanked their kid now, is that considered abuse?
> 
> Tom



If some busybody, or the child themselves, report it, the parent will likely be charged with some sort of misdemeanor child abuse.


----------



## Jed (15 Feb 2015)

I remember walking around the mall in Pembroke and I swatted my misbehaving kid on the arse. Then getting the evil eye from all the kind and gentle souls around me, lol.

Good thing I evil eyed them right back so I didn't get reported to the authorities, lol.


----------



## Tibbson (15 Feb 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> If some busybody, or the child themselves, report it, the parent will likely be charged with some sort of misdemeanor child abuse.



At it stands now the law allows for a parent to spank a child provided the force used is reasonable.  http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/LOP/ResearchPublications/prb0510-e.htm#section43


----------



## Pieman (15 Feb 2015)

> Although the data is still being studied, preliminary results suggest 39 per cent of military members had been slapped or spanked more than three times as children; comparable research on the general population indicates some 22 per cent of civilians had the same experience as kids.



So these are preliminary results. Being slapped/spanked more than three times qualifies as abuse? 

Witnesses to domestic abuse is broad. Verbal abuse? physical abuse? Have you heard your parents yell at each other more than three times?  Does that qualify?

So what are they trying to correlate here. People who get spanked are more likely to join the army, and therefore are attracted to violence? Or, people who grew up in violent environments become violent themselves?


----------



## Pieman (15 Feb 2015)

> "These findings suggest that evaluation of childhood trauma is important in the clinical assessment and treatment of depressive symptoms and suicidal ideation among military personnel and veterans," said the report by Dr. Nagy Youssef.



Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/soldiers-more-likely-to-have-experienced-childhood-abuse-study-1.2237375#ixzz3RsJjeIsm

Okay, the above statement worries me a lot. Let's say a soldier shows up with PTSD, is treated for it. Treatment is only so effective and said soldier needs help longer than they anticipated. (VAC was complaining about this recently -- soldiers not leaving the programs)  Then the argument can be conveniently switched to "Well it must be due to childhood trauma and not military related so you can get out of the program now."


----------



## Pusser (16 Feb 2015)

The trouble with this type of research is that it tends to treat the armed forces as being representative of society.  They simply are not.  A proper cross-section of society (against which we're being compared) would include every identifiable group, including  those groups who would never join the military, regardless of the circumstances.  These groups skew the data when compared against the military population, which only includes members of groups that would join the military.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (16 Feb 2015)

More likely children that grew up to be responsible joined the military because their parents cared enough to discipline them when they did things they knew they were not supposed to. Meanwhile studies show that kids who had hippy parents have a high rate of drug abuse, inability to succeed, higher welfare rates and failed marriages.


----------



## Jed (16 Feb 2015)

Colin P said:
			
		

> More likely children that grew up to be responsible joined the military because their parents cared enough to discipline them when they did things they knew they were not supposed to. Meanwhile studies show that kids who had hippy parents have a high rate of drug abuse, inability to succeed, higher welfare rates and failed marriages.



Good luck ever getting the Lame Stream Media reporting on studies of this nature.


----------



## Kat Stevens (16 Feb 2015)

Tin hat ON;
I can't help but think this is an attempt to further absolve the government of responsibility for soldiers who go wonky somewhere down the track. "His PTSD and associated mental conditions are not caused by combat, he had a pre existing condition which he lied about on enrollment. No benefits, and possible charges for falsifying enrollment documents". 

Tin hat OFF


----------



## Pieman (16 Feb 2015)

> These groups skew the data when compared against the military population, which only includes members of groups that would join the military.



A comparison has to be made in some manner, otherwise you can't build any meaningful statistics. Trick is to find a comparison that really means something. Comparing number of abused in general population to number of abused in military is reasonable but too broad to make any detailed conclusions.

Perhaps a more useful stat would be the number of abused from the general population end up joining the military, compared to the number non-abused from the general population?
Likely, they don't have that kind of data tho.


----------



## a_majoor (16 Feb 2015)

The "methodology" , including absurdly broad definitions of "abuse" and lack of meaningful samples or controls suggests that this is just another academic hit job where the conclusion was preordained and the data massaged to fit.

We see similar things with the "one in five" women on campus being sexually assaulted (their definition of "assault" was equally broad and ultimately meaningless, and the sample was absurdly small and self selected), or "poverty" statistics which somehow include people who own houses, cars and have internet access. I have a new rule which puts studies like that on "ignore" unless the methodology is discussed front and centre, so the reader can understand what is going on and manipulation like that can be easily exposed.


----------



## McG (16 Feb 2015)

It is anecdotal but, the majority of chronic disciplinary problems that I have encountered in the last few years seem have been individuals on first TOS who claim PTSD liked to some pre-enrolment abuses.  I have also encountered cases of suicide and attempted suicide liked to individuals of the same characteristics.  It was to the point that I had wondered if this was reflective of Canadian society or if the CF was recruiting a disproportionate number.

Just because we don't like what the numbers say on the surface, it might be better to start asking the "so what" questions as opposed to dismissing the results and attributing unsubstantiated malice to the researchers.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Feb 2015)

Pusser said:
			
		

> The trouble with this type of research is that it tends to treat the armed forces as being representative of society.  They simply are not.  A proper cross-section of society (against which we're being compared) would include every identifiable group, including  those groups who would never join the military, regardless of the circumstances.  These groups skew the data when compared against the military population, which only includes members of groups that would join the military.



Yet, how many times, whether it be drugs, suicide, sexual deviancy, etc concerning CAF personnel, do we preface our posts with, "The CAF is just a cross section\ representation of Canadian society." in our posts?


----------



## Pusser (17 Feb 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Yet, how many times, whether it be drugs, suicide, sexual deviancy, etc concerning CAF personnel, do we preface our posts with, "The CAF is just a cross section\ representation of Canadian society." in our posts?



I know we do that, but I've never agreed with it.  Form up any unit of the CF on parade and you can see that it simply isn't true.  The most obvious indication is that the number of women will not come anywhere close to 51%.


----------



## Shamrock (17 Feb 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> It is anecdotal but, the majority of chronic disciplinary problems that I have encountered in the last few years seem have been individuals on first TOS who claim PTSD liked to some pre-enrolment abuses.  I have also encountered cases of suicide and attempted suicide liked to individuals of the same characteristics.  It was to the point that I had wondered if this was reflective of Canadian society or if the CF was recruiting a disproportionate number.
> 
> Just because we don't like what the numbers say on the surface, it might be better to start asking the "so what" questions as opposed to dismissing the results and attributing unsubstantiated malice to the researchers.



How does that compare with what the courts face among its accused (likely 18-21)?


----------



## McG (17 Feb 2015)

Shamrock said:
			
		

> How does that compare with what the courts face among its accused (likely 18-21)?


How does what compare?


----------



## Shamrock (17 Feb 2015)

The numbers of accused in the court systems having similar instances of abuse/PTSD/etc.


----------



## Armymedic (23 Feb 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The "methodology" , including absurdly broad definitions of "abuse" and lack of meaningful samples or controls suggests that this is just another academic hit job where the conclusion was preordained and the data massaged to fit.



+1.

My initial response to reading the article was "BULLSHIT". Followed by the discussion point of, "Show me the numbers". If the comparison (as it is suggested in the article) is solely based on volunteer, anonymous and completely separate questionnaires I would be quick to dispute the findings.


----------



## Gunner98 (26 Feb 2015)

Annually there are researchers who approached the CAF with their hands out for grant money; they offer to provide detailed screening tests that would allow it to recruit "super soldiers" devoid of "pre-existing conditions - mental, physiological or social in nature".  Those are the types likely to publish their hypotheses.  They would like equipment like CAT scanners to be part of the applicants life prior to enrollment and at regular intervals during their career.


----------



## ModlrMike (26 Feb 2015)

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> Annually there are researchers who approached the CAF with their hands out for grant money; they offer to provide detailed screening tests that would allow it to recruit "super soldiers" devoid of "pre-existing conditions - mental, physiological or social in nature".  Those are the types likely to publish their hypotheses.  They would like equipment like CAT scanners to be part of the applicants life prior to enrollment and at regular intervals during their career.



With each head CT being equivalent to 8-16 months of background radiation, I'll pass.


----------



## geo (1 Jun 2015)

Oh please!!!!!!
WTH?
A tap on the bum to get the child's attention does not equate to abuse... And even if doing so is tough on the child, it's even harder on the parent.


----------



## pbi (2 Jun 2015)

In my (admitttedly stale-dated..) experience, there is another side to this, and one that we should be honest about.

First, I doubt very much that the CAF is "full" of people from seriously broken, pathologically abusive homes. Often those people grow up into adults who are of little use to society in general, never mind a structured, demanding organization like the military. If you don't believe me, ask anybody who works with Federal inmates and is familiar with their backgrounds. Not a lot of "Brady Bunch" families on that list, and not a lot of inmates who will ever amount to much-- "rehabilitation" to the contrary.

Second, I think the military _does_ have some people in it who come from dysfunctional families, and some of that probably includes some abuse. By abuse, I don't mean spanking. I spanked our kids, and was spanked myself. I mean things much worse than spanking (which is not illegal in Canada anyway). If you spend much time as an Adjutant of an Army field unit, or as a Chaplain, you will probably see that "family of origin" problems are something that some soldiers struggle with. Some don't handle it very well, and it comes out in bad, or sometimes criminal, behaviour. Nothing new there.

But, I think the point is this: that the huge majority of our soldiers who may face these sorts of problems find that the Army is an environment that helps them. It provides structure, clear goals, leadership (or, at least, a lot better leadership than they will ever find in civvy street) and a pretty clear and fair punishment system. It also provides friends, shared challenges and positive experiences, and a sense of belonging.

These are all things which are to be proud of, and are immensely helpful to people struggling with their past. Again, there is nothing new here: the Army has long been recognized as a place where people can make something of themselves.

I know that some people will scorn this as "Army as a social welfare agency". Fine. But I think it is true, whether we like it or not.


----------



## daftandbarmy (2 Jun 2015)

pbi said:
			
		

> In my (admitttedly stale-dated..) experience, there is another side to this, and one that we should be honest about.
> 
> First, I doubt very much that the CAF is "full" of people from seriously broken, pathologically abusive homes. Often those people grow up into adults who are of little use to society in general, never mind a structured, demanding organization like the military. If you don't believe me, ask anybody who works with Federal inmates and is familiar with their backgrounds. Not a lot of "Brady Bunch" families on that list, and not a lot of inmates who will ever amount to much-- "rehabilitation" to the contrary.
> 
> ...



My regiment in the British Army had a large number of people, Officers as well as ORs, who came from really lousy backgrounds. Think of 'Oliver Twist', but much, much worse.

I happily rusted them with my life, in a number of different ways on operations and elsewhere, for years.

Would I extend the same level of trust to a random assortment of civilians selected from the population?

No... friggin... way....


----------



## jollyjacktar (27 Jan 2016)

This will raise some hackles, I am sure.  shared under the fair dealings provisions of the copyright act.



> New
> Half of Canadian soldiers were abused as children, study indicates
> 
> Incidence much higher in military than general population, Canadian-led research indicates
> ...


----------



## PuckChaser (27 Jan 2016)

When will they wake up and start screening for mental health on recruitment? If you want to lower the statistics, don't expose people who are already dealing with issues into a foreign and high stress new world of military service.


----------



## George Wallace (27 Jan 2016)

I found the results of study showed that military service was a positive affect on members who suffered abuse as children.  

Perhaps it makes a point to bring in compulsory service (not necessarily military) to the nation as a form of "preventative medicine".  :dunno: 

 >


----------



## Fluff (27 Jan 2016)

I'd be interested to see if this also agrees with the current scientific research showing that childhood abuse can be a predictor of later PTSD development after deployment. (Research study by Dorthe Berntsen of Aarhus University in Denmark)


----------



## George Wallace (27 Jan 2016)

Fluff said:
			
		

> I'd be interested to see if this also agrees with the current scientific research showing that childhood abuse can be a predictor of later PTSD development after deployment. (Research study by Dorthe Berntsen of Aarhus University in Denmark)



I had an impression that the last few paragraphs of that article were alluding to that.


----------



## Kilo_302 (27 Jan 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I found the results of study showed that military service was a positive affect on members who suffered abuse as children.
> 
> Perhaps it makes a point to bring in compulsory service (not necessarily military) to the nation as a form of "preventative medicine".  :dunno:
> 
> >



I actually think national service of some form or another is a great idea. There should be a non-military option for those who choose it, but meeting Canadians from different walks of life, serving your country and overcoming challenges could only have a positive effect on young adults. Most kids these days identify as a consumer first and foremost, rather than as a citizen of a democracy.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (27 Jan 2016)

What i see is that the Military is a "safe space" for those abused in a "unsafe civil society"

_"What we know about people coming out of dysfunctional families is they often gravitate towards environments where there is structure and safety," says Dr. Greg Passey, a Vancouver psychiatrist who served 22 years in the Canadian military. He was not involved in the study.  

Part of his deployment was in Rwanda in 1994, where he was part of a mental health team, assessing stress in Canadian troops.

"What we know about the Canadian military environment, it is like a very large family. There's very clear boundaries and rules," said Passey. "Overall it makes sense that individuals with childhood sexual abuse or just abuse in general would gravitate towards the military."_


----------



## George Wallace (27 Jan 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> I actually think national service of some form or another is a great idea. There should be a non-military option for those who choose it, but meeting Canadians from different walks of life, serving your country and overcoming challenges could only have a positive effect on young adults. Most kids these days identify as a consumer first and foremost, rather than as a citizen of a democracy.



The German version of National Service was broken down to accommodate the various segments of their population.  The majority of course went into the military, but there was the option to join the Polizei as well.  For those who were "Conscientious Objectors", such as Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, the option was to serve their time in other Emergency Services or hospitals.  With "the Wall" coming down, this was greatly scaled back and is now basically 'history'.


----------



## The Bread Guy (27 Jan 2016)

Colin P said:
			
		

> What i see is that the Military is a "safe space" for those abused in a "unsafe civil society"


I may be grossly oversimplifying, but I'm guessing many here with cadet or military experience here can think of at least some folks who join while a bit ... lost, but when subjected to fair and consistent discipline and structure, have thrived and done well.


			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Perhaps it makes a point to bring in compulsory service (not necessarily military) to the nation as a form of "preventative medicine".  :dunno:
> >


Maybe not as "preventative medicine", but to give some folks who need it (and I'm going to sound like an old fart saying this) structure and direction.


			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> The German version of National Service was broken down to accommodate the various segments of their population.  The majority of course went into the military, but there was the option to join the Polizei as well.  For those who were "Conscientious Objectors" such as Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, the option was to serve their time in other Emergency Services hospitals.  With "the Wall" coming down, this was greatly scaled back and is now basically 'history'.


I have relatives in Italy who, when they still had compulsory military service, opted for parallel service with the Red Cross.


----------



## George Wallace (27 Jan 2016)

Colin P said:
			
		

> What i see is that the Military is a "safe space" for those abused in a "unsafe civil society"



What I saw was:



> "In the military, we are taught to cope with very stressful situations," he said. "Our military members, despite a history of childhood abuse, would be better at coping with stressful situations and therefore less likely to have suicidal ideations versus the general population."



This suggested to me that the military taught coping skills with which to reduce instances of various forms of mental health problems found in larger numbers amoung the general population who had never seen military service.  The operative word is "Reduce"; not "eliminate".


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Jan 2016)

Does this enter into the discussion at all?

A soldier is hired to perform the most anti-social act of all: to kill someone.

To make it worse, I think, in many cases he or she will hold no personal animosity to that person they have killed.  If they met them on Yonge Street killing them would not be their immediate response.

While in the forces, and particularly while actively engaged, everything they hear around them supports them as they perform the anti-social act while under orders.

Once they come away from the zone, however, the supports start being withdrawn and the soldier is left with their own thoughts.  As long as they stay in the army there is some buffer.  But the more interaction they have with others who have not shared their experience, perhaps, the more effort it takes to justify their actions to themselves.

Life may then become harder, if society decides that the original reason for the soldier being put in that position in the first place wasn't really that important after all.  Or worse, that it was wrong.

At that point the soldier is alone with their thoughts, isolated, if not ostracized from the community and trying to justify his behaviour, and the loss of friends to himself.

Perhaps the fact that there are so FEW suicides should be considered remarkable.


----------



## Journeyman (27 Jan 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> At that point the soldier is alone with their thoughts, isolated, if not ostracized from the community and trying to justify his behaviour, and the loss of friends to himself.
> 
> Perhaps the fact that there are so FEW suicides should be considered remarkable.


Excellent way of viewing this.  


[NOT to diminish the significance of veteran suicides in any way!]


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (27 Jan 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Does this enter into the discussion at all?
> 
> A soldier is hired to perform the most anti-social act of all: to kill someone.
> 
> ...



That's worth a topic all it's own.

http://army.ca/forums/threads/121870.new.html#new


----------



## a_majoor (27 Jan 2016)

IT seems odd that on one side people equate the military as a safe and secure haven for broken people, while on the other side we are innundated with programs to prevent harrassment, sexual misconduct, mental health etc. and have a phone book full of 1-800 numbers to address these problems.

Any uninformed person might get the idea that it is more dangerous inside the Green Machine than outside...


----------



## Jarnhamar (27 Jan 2016)

Why would they repost an old story?


----------



## GAP (27 Jan 2016)

I would really question that study and the bias's/format of it......just does not ring true past the point of the CF being a slice of general society. :


----------



## MilEME09 (28 Jan 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> I actually think national service of some form or another is a great idea. There should be a non-military option for those who choose it, but meeting Canadians from different walks of life, serving your country and overcoming challenges could only have a positive effect on young adults. Most kids these days identify as a consumer first and foremost, rather than as a citizen of a democracy.



If i remember correctly it's the Swiss who give the option to do community service and a couple other things for those who object to serving in the military. Not a bad idea


----------



## daftandbarmy (28 Jan 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> IT seems odd that on one side people equate the military as a safe and secure haven for broken people, while on the other side we are innundated with programs to prevent harrassment, sexual misconduct, mental health etc. and have a phone book full of 1-800 numbers to address these problems.
> 
> Any uninformed person might get the idea that it is more dangerous inside the Green Machine than outside...



Exactly. What we need now is a good war


----------



## Journeyman (28 Jan 2016)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Exactly. What we need now is a good war


...or a sickly season; I'd take either about now.  :nod:


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (28 Jan 2016)

Well played, Journeyman.

That is the toast of the day for a Thursday.


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Jan 2016)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> If i remember correctly it's the Swiss who give the option to do community service and a couple other things for those who object to serving in the military. Not a bad idea



Alternatives to military service are quite common throughout those European countries with mandatory service.


----------



## daftandbarmy (28 Jan 2016)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> ...or a sickly season; I'd take either about now.  :nod:



Wait for it.....

Zika virus spreading explosively, says World Health Organisation 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/28/zika-virus-spreading-explosively-says-world-health-organisation


----------



## dimsum (29 Jan 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Does this enter into the discussion at all?
> 
> A soldier is hired to perform the most anti-social act of all: to kill someone.
> 
> ...



 :goodpost:


----------

