# Injured recruits misdiagnosed then dropped by military



## schart28 (13 Feb 2008)

Injured recruits misdiagnosed then dropped by military
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2008/02/12/bc-injuredsoldiers.html


Ex-soldiers say they have been left disillusioned and permanently disabled
Last Updated: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 | 9:06 PM ET 
CBC News 

Former recruit Natasha Howell says her faith in the Canadian Forces is shattered. 
"I'm 30 years old and I have to learn how to walk," said Natasha Howell. "They saw my injury. They knew it and they still didn't do anything about it — nothing."
What the doctors at the Canadian Forces Leadership and Recruit School (CFLRS) at Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu told Howell was a sprained ankle in September 2005, required reconstructive surgery two years later after she was discharged.

"People are shattering their feet, breaking their hips — because they are being pushed so far beyond their limit that their bodies can't do it," said Autumn Thomas, another former recruit, who injured her back during training.
Those experiences are "unfortunate," said Lt.-Col. Christian Mercier, the commander at CFLRS. "In the future, maybe we need to devote more time to the people who are here in those circumstances."

According to the Canadian military, more than 3,500 recruits go through basic training at CFLRS every year. In 2007, there were 234 injury accidents and 644 recruits and officer cadets were put on medical restrictions.
About three-quarters of the recruits complete their training successfully, the military said.


Howell's dream was to serve her country, like her brother, when she signed up in 2004. When she fell during training at CFLRS in bad weather, military doctors told her she had an ankle sprain. They put her on crutches but soon sent her back to training. 
Howell said that over the next several months she kept telling the doctors that she was in a lot of pain, but never received proper treatment.


Natasha Howell, who signed up in 2004, says when she fell during training at CFLRS in bad weather, the military doctors told her she had an ankle sprain. 

"You still had to do the marching, you still had to do the drill," she said. "If you've been there [the medical clinic] numerous times with the same injury, they just think you are complaining and want to get out of training.
"I never wanted to get out of training. I was really hurt."

Howell was taken out of her platoon and eventually discharged from the Canadian Forces for medical reasons. Back home in Sydney, N.S., she said her civilian doctor was shocked to see that her ankle injury had gone untreated for two years and ordered immediate surgery.
"They actually found that my injury had gotten worse after walking on it for two years," said Howell. "The cut in the bone got another millimetre in depth and the actual ligament was non-existent and the other one was pretty much shredded."

Howell spent months depressed and learning to walk again. She is now unemployed and permanently disabled. The worst part, she said, is her dream of being a soldier is shattered — along with her faith in the Canadian Forces.
"I was proud to be in the military," Howell said. "After being treated the way I was treated — or I should say not treated for my injury — made me feel like I was a waste of their time."

Howell wiped away tears as she described how her life has changed.
"I used to run and walk and exercise. I was always out," she said, "Now, there's just a lot I can't do that I want to do. I spend my time thinking, what I am going to do with the rest of my life?"

Thomas signed up last year and then fell when a mound of dirt she was climbing during an exercise gave way. Like Howell, she said she told doctors she had shooting pain down her leg, but they didn't diagnose herniated disks in her back until much later. 
"They're pushing us really hard to get through the training because we are so short-staffed in the military, they just want us to get in, get done and get out," said Thomas.


Thomas was also discharged last year on administrative release, a category that means she doesn't qualify for military health coverage. She's struggling with back pain while in nursing school in Mission, B.C., and can't afford the physiotherapy she needs.
"It's destroyed my life," she said. "I wouldn't go back to the military. I would not recommend it to anyone right now until they get this fixed."

Mercier said the biggest problem during training is that some recruits just aren't fit enough to make the cut and that the people the Forces send to Afghanistan need to have a certain mental and physical robustness to be able to cope.
"I have a lot of respect for these two individuals and I hope that they will have and enjoy a full recovery," said Mercier. "It is very sad to hear that it turned out to not be that good of an experience for them.


"We do our best to provide them with the ideal conditions," said Mercier, "But we do have certain limitations here in terms of a training institution and the environment that we can actually provide to these individuals to get proper care."
Mercier insisted pressure to train recruits quickly for deployment overseas is not a problem and CFLRS has enough medical staff and resources to do the job.

However, an e-mail sent to Thomas last fall by another officer at CFLRS pointed to increased pressure and stretched resources.
"I hope you understand that with the amount of people that we have going through St-Jean that certain mistakes will be made," Capt. Robert Tanguay wrote. "The force expansion is creating all kinds of special circumstances for a lot of people and our health services is doing some extensive catching up, in order to provide proper care for the CF members."

Mercier also said the recruits' experiences were not what they should have been.
"Things happen," he said. "Maybe we didn't help those people good enough. But I can tell you something, an interview like the one we are doing [with CBC News] now makes us look at how we do business how we can do business better in the future."


MOD EDIT: took out the picture captions to make it readable.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (13 Feb 2008)

Nice one-sided *cough* news article.


----------



## schart28 (13 Feb 2008)

the problem is that these one sided stories are popping up... there might and probably are more a common problem and persistant problems


----------



## 2 Cdo (13 Feb 2008)

schart28 said:
			
		

> Injured recruits misdiagnosed then dropped by military
> http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2008/02/12/bc-injuredsoldiers.html
> 
> "People are shattering their feet, breaking their hips — because they are being pushed so far beyond their limit that their bodies can't do it," said Autumn Thomas, another former recruit, who injured her back during training



Sorry to sound cold-hearted but recruit training should push you to beyond your limits. While I sympathise with those who get mis-diagnosed(a whole other discussion), people do get injured during training and yes some end up being released because of it. This can and does happen at any time during your career.
Just because you really want to serve does not mean you will serve, sometimes shit happens and one has to accept an alternate career.
Again, I truly sympathise with those who the medical system has failed, but that particular comment by Autumn bothered me.


----------



## Infanteer (13 Feb 2008)

schart28 said:
			
		

> Former recruit Natasha Howell says her faith in the Canadian Forces is shattered.
> "I'm 30 years old and I have to learn how to walk," said Natasha Howell. "They saw my injury. They knew it and they still didn't do anything about it — nothing."
> What the doctors at the Canadian Forces Leadership and Recruit School (CFLRS) at Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu told Howell was a sprained ankle in September 2005, required reconstructive surgery two years later after she was discharged.
> 
> "People are shattering their feet, breaking their hips — because they are being pushed so far beyond their limit that their bodies can't do it," said Autumn Thomas, another former recruit, who injured her back during training.



Two recruits (older) who hurt themselves.  I think I can make a rough guess at their physical conditioning if they feel they were "pushed so far beyond their limit that their bodies can't do it." - that doesn't really happen at St Jean....   :

Unfortunate, and I'm not denying their claims, but we have nothing to say that this wasn't a pre-existing condition or that it wasn't excacerbated by further activity.



> According to the Canadian military, more than 3,500 recruits go through basic training at CFLRS every year. In 2007, there were 234 injury accidents and 644 recruits and officer cadets were put on medical restrictions.
> About three-quarters of the recruits complete their training successfully, the military said.



...and the reason these ones probably feel they were rushed along was because of their peers.  Roughly 15% of trainees there report for chits; being in an Individual Training institution, I can tell you that alot of these trainees take chits for the easy ride.  As a result, the MIR is a meat-factory (go see the sick parade at St-Jean for a good example).

All in all, I have a funny feeling that a more effective gateway at the recruiting level would help prevent this 15% business (in terms of process, not recruiter effort).


----------



## Neill McKay (13 Feb 2008)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Nice one-sided *cough* news article.



What would you like to have seen included in the article to make it less one-sided?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (13 Feb 2008)

This news article should ALSO point out the creation and necessity for the RFT Platoon (or is it Coy now?) that was created because of the # of recruits on BMQ and IAP that show up for *military training* so out of shape they can't even do the EXPRES test.

That might make it not so one-sided.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (13 Feb 2008)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Nice one-sided *cough* news article.



Also,

*cough*cough* must be very slow news day*cough*cough*


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (13 Feb 2008)

What about starting something like the Delayed Entry Program they have in the US?  I'm not 100% on the details of how it works, but it might help out some of the less-prepared candidates, whilst keeping the costs to the taxpayer down ... http://www.marines.com/page/usmc.jsp?pageId=/page/SubSection-XML-Conversion.jsp?pageName=Delayed-Entry-Program&flashRedirect=true


----------



## Eye In The Sky (13 Feb 2008)

Their injuries aside, I think it is also important to point out here that the 'problems the military is facing' analysis in the article is coming from 2 people who apparantly never made it out of their QL3 trades training.  They are obviously unhappy they couldn't make it thru the training.

I am sorry but...if you fall down a pile of dirt and are permanently disabled by that, are you really cut out for military service?  I fell out of trees as a kid, wiped out on my bike weekly if not daily and caught more baseballs with my head then with my glove.  I survived.

I would like to see more actually medical facts on this;  for example, is there proof that the individual didn't have any previous documented (or undocumented, for that matter) back injuries and that the herniated discs were solely due to falling down the dirt pile?  If they were in fact misdiagnosed and the like...isn't there a process with DVA that will look after them to the same standard that soldiers coming back from operations with (combat) injuries are required to go thru?  Seems to me there is some  :crybaby: :crybaby: to this 'story' but...thats my own opinion.  

I am not calling them liars;  I am saying I don't see any proof in the pudding at this point.  Again, great job by the news media  : with unbiased reporting WRT to CF.


----------



## infanteer-it (13 Feb 2008)

The truth of the matter is that the MIR at places like this are so full of people trying to get out of work that the people who are actually injured often times get overlooked. No Matter how hard you train the possiblity of injury still exists. Considering the pressure these schools are under to get people trained and operational, is it acceptable to ruin a few lives to get it done? Can we rationalize what happened in Ms. Howell's situation because there are some people at the MIR faking injuries? I would say not. The CF medical system needs to be looking out for the best interest of the troops under their care, and not giving them a lollypop(i.e. ibuprofen) and telling them to get back out in the field without doing a proper diagnosis. Whether or not Ms. Howell had/has the fortitude to be in the military, her injury was misdiagnosed by an apathetic medical staff and now she is paying the price of being handicapped for the rest of her life with nothing to show for it.


----------



## PMedMoe (13 Feb 2008)

> Mercier said the biggest problem during training is that *some recruits just aren't fit enough to make the cut* and that the people the Forces send to Afghanistan need to have a certain mental and physical robustness to be able to cope.



Not to say that people don't get seriously hurt at BMQ, however, maybe it's time to start looking at doing the fitness test before they get in.  Also, as said above, many people have pre-existing conditions that don't get picked up on the entry medical.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (13 Feb 2008)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Not to say that people don't get seriously hurt at BMQ, however, maybe it's time at looking at doing the fitness test before they get in.  Also, as said above, many people have pre-existing conditions that don't get picked up on the entry medical.



To a limited level, I agree.   However, IAW the dates/timelines provided in the article, these people would have joined when the fitness testing was done during the CFRC processes (the dropping of the fitness tests during recruiting was done in the fall of 2006 IIRC).

And if they were done after the fitness testing was dropped, to partake in the training, they would have had to have passed the EXPRES test.  So I am not sure the first sentence in your post would effectively address the issue.  Thoughts?


----------



## benny88 (13 Feb 2008)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I can tell you that alot of these trainees take chits for the easy ride.  As a result, the MIR is a meat-factory (go see the sick parade at St-Jean for a good example).



  That's a big +1 Infanteer


    The MIR at CFLRS is an absolute gaggle**** of whiners. Granted, training can be rigorous, and I'm not one who advocates gutting it through potentially serious injuries (that's how people get serious problems) but people need to start realizing the difference between hurtin' and injured. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the staff can refuse a recruit who requests a trip to the MIR, but theres no quicker way to lose the respect of your instructors, and more importantly, your platoon mates, than running to the MIR for every cough and boo boo.



			
				infanteer-it said:
			
		

> The truth of the matter is that the MIR at places like this are so full of people trying to get out of work that the people who are actually injured often times get overlooked.



   I agree with that too, and it's a real shame. The people who work in the MIR are professional, good at their jobs, and unfortunately, overworked because of whiners.


----------



## karl28 (13 Feb 2008)

I feel for these recruits having an injury can be life changing event . At the same hand I am not sure that the CF is to take full blame on there current state  .  I  will use me as an example I was injured April 2007 on my BMQ course and I messed my right knee up strainedmost of the  ligaments and had a  stress fracture on the Tibia .  I was hoping to stay in the CF  and so was my staff  ( for me staying inthe CF )  was sent from wainright to St Jean  to heal up  but it didn't heal up  fast enough while I was in PAT. There was a rule change at the same time  saying that if you where medically unfit for duty for more than 30 days you would be  honorably released and sent home in July this is what happened to me others where sent home at various times  ( there was a PRB to determine this at the same time ) .
       * I was discouraged about being sent home but at the same time I know the knee injury happened cause I wasn't fully ready for the challenges that lay ahead with the CF  .  Even though I  was working out at the Gym before hand and had lost   30 pounds  I was still 295 at the start of my BMQ course still  to heavy to attempt it but I was arrogant enough to thinking that I could handle it .*   What I am trying to get it is that people who are thinking of joining the CF should make darn sure that they are good to go physical before they start it will save them and the CF a lot of Grief .    I also feel for the MIR staff at  St Jean  I think they do a good job but sadly I don't think there is enough of them to handle the work load .   Like some stated there are two sides to every story .


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (13 Feb 2008)

infanteer-it said:
			
		

> . Whether or not Ms. Howell had/has the fortitude to be in the military, her injury was misdiagnosed by an apathetic medical staff and now she is paying the price of being handicapped for the rest of her life with nothing to show for it.



..and you know this how??              Oh, because she said so.                     


Well I always say I'm an aging sex-god......................


----------



## Dean Thompson (13 Feb 2008)

I remember doing Basic Training at Cornwallis back in '88 at 18 years old, and finding the PT pretty hard. We had a 28 year old guy on my Battle School course we called "Pappy" since he was 10 years older than all of us. Nowadays we have 50 year old privates showing up at some units (I've seen a few here at Comox), so there is no way that the PT is as hard as it could/should be. Not to mention that a good number of the young privates I see around here are 30+ pounds overweight and look totally out of shape. We can make fun of the US military for allowing known gang members to serve, but we are getting damn near to scraping the bottom of the barrel ourselves.


----------



## medaid (13 Feb 2008)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Well I always say I'm an aging sex-god......................



Oh ho ho ho ho  :rofl:


----------



## PMedMoe (13 Feb 2008)

Jimmy4Now said:
			
		

> And if they were done after the fitness testing was dropped, to partake in the training, they would have had to have passed the EXPRES test.  So I am not sure the first sentence in your post would effectively address the issue.  Thoughts?



Well, maybe raising the standards fro the ExPres is a good idea.  I've seen people meet the minimum who are *not* in good shape.


----------



## benny88 (13 Feb 2008)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Well, maybe raising the standards fro the ExPres is a good idea.  I've seen people meet the minimum who are *not* in good shape.



    Very true, but the standards could be raised, but I think a big part of the problem is that they don't STICK to the standards. Agreed, failing the ExPres in the first week of course shouldn't get you booted from course, but I saw OCdts fail time and time again, and STILL get shipped off to RMC where they continue to fail PT tests. It seems that if you fail the cardio portion (beep test) it has repercussions such as recourse or RFT, but the strength portion you can try over and over again. One OCdt after numerous (3, I think) retests, was passed and sent to RMC anyways where they proceeded to do ONE pushup.
    I don't know if anyone else has seen this problem, but it seems to me that the standards are reasonable, but very, very flexible.


----------



## belka (13 Feb 2008)

Having started basic training with Ms. Howell, I can tell you right now that the military is better off without her. Not to be rude or anything, but her physical fitness standards were appauling. I don't even know how she was let into the military in the first place, she couldn't even do 3 measly push-ups, or do one lap of the St.Jean outdoor track without bending over for air. All this was before her injury, ofcourse. The funniest thing about it, was that her trade was infantry! How does a 30 year old that is 60lbs overweight and can't do 3 push-ups or run 100m allowed into the military in the first place?


----------



## Nfld Sapper (13 Feb 2008)

Maybe because there is no testing done prior to getting in.


----------



## Celticgirl (13 Feb 2008)

NINJA said:
			
		

> Having started basic training with Ms. Howell, I can tell you right now that the military is better off without her. Not to be rude or anything, but her physical fitness standards were appauling. I don't even know how she was let into the military in the first place, she couldn't even do 3 measly push-ups, or do one lap of the St.Jean outdoor track without bending over for air. All this was before her injury, ofcourse. The funniest thing about it, was that her trade was infantry! How does a 30 year old that is 60lbs overweight and can't do 3 push-ups or run 100m allowed into the military in the first place?



And here we have a very different perspective. I was kind of wondering about the level of 'preparedness'. If you are out-of-shape and then try to do strenuous workouts, your risk of injury is much, much higher than it would be for a person who is fit. 

I'm sure the medics in St. Jean wouldn't give the green light to someone they knew was seriously injured. Ergo, this type of 'error' likely doesn't happen too often, although that's precisely what was implied in the article.

Disclaimer: I'm not a medic nor have I been to St. Jean (yet)...I just don't like whiners. Suck it up, buttercup. ;D


----------



## observor 69 (13 Feb 2008)

Ya gotta wonder where some of these recruits would fall on a BMI chart. 
Are recruits who are at an acceptable weight per BMI having physical problems at St.Jean?


----------



## benny88 (13 Feb 2008)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> Are recruits who are at an acceptable weight per BMI having physical problems at St.Jean?



   Beyond random crap happening (rolled ankles, etc.) absolutely not. My fitness improved, but I don't think I was pushed very hard physically. Mentally...thats another story   :crybaby:


----------



## formerarmybrat23 (13 Feb 2008)

I dont think raising the express standards or pre testing is necessary. Truth be told if pre testing exisited I would not have gotten to basic for some time. After having my son I was about 20 pnds over weight. By the end (thank you psp) I surpassed the express test standards and lost 15 pds. I'm thankful that todays rules for entry gave me a chance to do a job I've wanted to do for 8 yrs, but only had the courage to do now.

As for injuries they do happen. Most times the MIR does everything possible. Even if you get thrown in PAT, at least you are gettting paid to heal and can, in most cases, get to re-try basic once healed.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (13 Feb 2008)

There have been troops who have been in PAT platoon for YEARS.  I wonder what happened differently with this two.


----------



## PMedMoe (13 Feb 2008)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> Ya gotta wonder where some of these recruits would fall on a BMI chart.
> Are recruits who are at an acceptable weight per BMI having physical problems at St.Jean?



We abandoned the BMI as it was useless if you were under 17 years old, a body builder, pregnant.....
People who were really tall and had a big gut still fell within an "acceptable" weight per BMI. 



			
				Pte  Brat said:
			
		

> Truth be told if pre testing exisited I would not have gotten to basic for some time.



Well, then you would have had to be in shape *before* you joined.   I was in the Reserves when I had my daughter and we didn't get any Mat leave.  I left work at the end of May, had my daughter June 17th (had gained 37 lbs) and was back to work and pre-pregnancy weight after the long weekend in Aug.  I had to fit into work dress which is not quite as "forgiving" as combats are.   :


----------



## IntlBr (13 Feb 2008)

I won't weigh in too far on this, as I haven't done anything outside of a PRes BMQ - but there were times during our morning PT (this was a Winter/Spring course) where I (along with many others in the Platoon) felt our safety was at risk.

Running on ice-covered gravel roads full of pot-holes at 0430 in the Winter (when it is still very dark out) is very dangerous.  We had several people get injured this way over the length of the course, and it compromised their/our training.  That said, I was able to keep my eyes wide enough, and stay alert enough, that I wasn't injured - but it most certainly was the only thing I was focused on during morning PT: don't get hurt.  

Believe me, it was with a lot of luck that we didn't have more injuries due to the winter PT conditions.  And I believe that the first woman's argument is that she was injured in bad weather conditions (of course the article doesn't elaborate on that).

Just my two bits - take it or leave it.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (13 Feb 2008)

IntlBr said:
			
		

> I won't weigh in too far on this, as I haven't done anything outside of a PRes BMQ - but there were times during our morning PT (this was a Winter/Spring course) where I (along with many others in the Platoon) felt our safety was at risk.
> 
> Running on ice-covered gravel roads full of pot-holes at 0430 in the Winter (when it is still very dark out) is very dangerous.  We had several people get injured this way over the length of the course, and it compromised their/our training.  That said, I was able to keep my eyes wide enough, and stay alert enough, that I wasn't injured - but it most certainly was the only thing I was focused on during morning PT: don't get hurt.
> 
> ...



Well if you see a pothole you should inform the rest of the course by saying "Pothole" or is that too much common sense?


----------



## benny88 (13 Feb 2008)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Well if you see a pothole you should inform the rest of the course by saying "Pothole" or is that too much common sense?



   Don't know about you Sapper, but at 0430 my common sense ain't too sharp.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (13 Feb 2008)

Sounds like a personal problem to me ;D


----------



## IntlBr (13 Feb 2008)

Like I said, most of us got through it alright, but running on ice for several kms never struck me as an entirely sound idea.

Call me crazy...


----------



## Nfld Sapper (13 Feb 2008)

IntlBr said:
			
		

> Like I said, most of us got through it alright, but running on ice for several kms never struck me as an entirely sound idea.
> 
> Call me crazy...



I blame TN2IC aka Sgt. Schutlz for not getting out early enough to salt and sand the roads  ;D


----------



## Pea (13 Feb 2008)

I may be slightly off-topic, but I felt like touching on a couple of things.

I was not in "good enough" shape when I arrived at BMQ. I had some kind of false belief that I was when I signed up, but a few days into course I knew very well that I should have held off applying until I was in better physical shape. I went to RFT, and joined a new platoon 25 lbs lighter than when I left the first one. I found morning PT on course to be challenging, but definitely do-able. Rucksack marches and field training was also challenging at times, but it's supposed to be! When you are doing something for the first time in your life, it generally doesn't just come perfectly. I gave my all, and did my best in each occasion, and never had a problem completing anything that was asked of me. When graduation time came, I'd lost another 10-15lbs and was in an all around pretty good shape. (which I of course, strive to keep improving in order to be more efficient in my job) 

I experienced some trouble during BMQ with rucksack marching. I'm a pretty small female, so I have a bit of trouble adjusting the rucksack to fit me properly and bear the weight evenly across my body. I experienced some pain after the longer marches, but basically just chalked it up to "not being fit enough", and "doing something new for my body". I am sure all these things contributed to it too. What it ended up being, was that I had a stress fracture in my right hip, and didn't know it. It took getting partway into SQ and collapsing on a morning run for me to realize that "just some pain" was more than that. I've just come off almost 2 months of pretty much "no breathing" restrictions, and am back on course doing unit PT. I can't stress how important physical fitness is. I know first hand how being unprepared physically can affect a person, and I will NEVER do that to myself again. My physical fitness level is very important to me now for obvious reasons.

As for the Express test, I'm a firm believer that the minimum standard is too low for this career, especially the female standard. I really don't think that 9 pushups, and a level 4 on the beep test prepares me to be able to do my job effectively. I'd like to hope that females aim to at least meet, if not exceed, the male standard. I know I make sure I can at least meet the male minimum, but that's just my personal view of course.


----------



## PMedMoe (13 Feb 2008)

Excellent post, Pea.  From someone with recent experience as well!!


----------



## Celticgirl (13 Feb 2008)

Pte Pea said:
			
		

> I'd like to hope that females aim to at least meet, if not exceed, the male standard.



I couldn't agree more!   ushup:


----------



## medaid (13 Feb 2008)

It is my personal firm belief that if I get injured on a course due to my physical inabilities it was my own fault for not being physically fit. I do not blame anyone else for that other then myself. If it was due to circumstance outside of my control that I was injured then that is a different story. However, to use the excuse of "training was too hard" is just a whole bunch of BS. I have no sympathy for those who did not take care of themselves and realised their limitations prior to getting into a physically demanding occupation.

Now, that being said. There are lots left to be desired with our current health care system in the CF. There are way too many doctors who don't really care about their patients and are just here to serve out their time. Prior to getting back to their civilian lives. I've had a less then satisfactory doctors on one of my courses at a base that I will not mention. I've generally found PAs to be more in tune with those with boots on the ground and provide and prescribe the best treatment to encourage and facilitate healing 90% of the time.

Anyways just my 0.02.


----------



## Greymatters (13 Feb 2008)

Love the attitude...


----------



## medaid (13 Feb 2008)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> Love the attitude...



*shrug* feel free to disagree with me.


----------



## 1feral1 (13 Feb 2008)

Stuff-ups happen. Human error, etc. Yes in all walks of life.

I am sure if Bloggins hurt himself as a Walmart employee, it would not make the news.

Defence these days warrants a high profile no matter what negative story comes out.

The press love to hate us.


Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Kat Stevens (13 Feb 2008)

MedTech said:
			
		

> It is my personal firm belief that if I get injured on a course due to my physical inabilities it was my own fault for not being physically fit. I do not blame anyone else for that other then myself. If it was due to circumstance outside of my control that I was injured then that is a different story. However, to use the excuse of "training was too hard" is just a whole bunch of BS. I have no sympathy for those who did not take care of themselves and realised their limitations prior to getting into a physically demanding occupation.
> 
> Now, that being said. There are lots left to be desired with our current health care system in the CF. There are way too many doctors who don't really care about their patients and are just here to serve out their time. Prior to getting back to their civilian lives. I've had a less then satisfactory doctors on one of my courses at a base that I will not mention. I've generally found PAs to be more in tune with those with boots on the ground and provide and prescribe the best treatment to encourage and facilitate healing 90% of the time.
> 
> Anyways just my 0.02.



Soooo, all those guys who get injured on Pathfinder, Clearance Diver, Ranger, or any other hard charger course have only themselves to blame, and were weak and ill prepared?   Wow, been watching Patton a bit too much, lately?  Can't wait to see the bunch of fire pissing, ass in the grass medics you're gonna be leading.  Section attacks across the Fd Amb parking lot every morning.  Get a grip.


----------



## scoutfinch (13 Feb 2008)

MedTech said:
			
		

> *shrug* feel free to disagree with me.



I will disagree with you, having sustained a serious 2nd degree ankle sprain on CAP that had nothing to do with my level of fitness as I am a pretty serious distance runner.  I simply hit a pot hole while rucking.

Blaming the injured for their injury like that harkens back to a previous era in the CF when people were told to push through the pain... you know the old "pain is weakness leaving the body mentality" which is foolishness.

I struggled through CAP with my injury with the support of my staff who were very concerned about what I was doing.  One of my Sgts took me aside one day and told me that he really thought I was being too stubborn, I had already proven my mental toughness and I didn't have to prove it any more.  He told me that he was concerned because he had see too many damn fine soldiers end their careers because of untreated knee and ankle injuries.  

Although I didn't follow his advice because I was too damn short sighted to see beyond the end of course, looking back I realize that I made some fundamentally wrong decisions.  Fortunately, I have had no long term consequences because of my stupidity but I have resolved that I will never permit any of my subordinates to try to do the same thing I did.  I know that my 'retroactive awareness' may not be the height of leadership examples but I learned my lesson and I would hope to prevent others from making the same short-sighted decisions I did.

Leaders can never allow their people to train through injury without treatment.  That is just wrong.  Blaming the injured for their injury will cause them to not seek the medical attention they can require.  That isn't fostering toughness.  That is bullying... and there is no place for such conduct in leadership.


----------



## benny88 (13 Feb 2008)

MedTech said:
			
		

> It is my personal firm belief that if I get injured on a course due to my *physical inabilities * it was my own fault for not being physically fit.




   Look again guys. I don't think MedTech meant sprained ankles.


----------



## danchapps (13 Feb 2008)

Ok, I have at least a nickel on this topic from first hand experience. To start with, my staff insisted on us going to the MIR, even if we thought it was a small cold. This stemmed from a previous course where they almost had a student die from an infection because he was too stubborn to get it looked at. So, my first trip to MIR was for what I thought was strep throat, they gave me sudeffed for this. I thought it was a bit strange to be getting a nasal decongestant for a problem with my throat (I also was worried about my in-ability to swallow half of my meal). So, after explaining my concern to the Med Tech, she was able to get me some Tylenol. She was almost as baffled at the prescription as I was. Soon after this, many others from my platoon wound up in the MIR with various conditions, and all wound up with sudeffed as well, so much so that we started joking about not going to MIR and just getting our own sudeffed. "Oh, you sprained your ankle, get out the sudeffed." That sort of thing. 

My next trip was for my feet. While in Farnham on week 9 we were doing some patrol formation classes, and while running I planted my foot wrong, and feeling a sharp pain down the arch. I kept up with the training for the rest of the week, thinking nothing of it, even completing the BFT. After noticing I could barely walk on the one foot due to the pain I reluctantly went back to the MIR. Luckily I feel this diagnosis was a little more accurate. It turns out that I wound up with pronation in the feet (fallen arches). This was solved by simply doing some foot stretches throughout the day, and by wearing arch support insoles.

Next trip. During week 11 (first week after this past X-mas holiday) the temperature skyrocketed up to +13deg, causing St-Bruno to become more like a river. Between walking on the rough terrain, through stream like condition, pretty much a hell day for walking I did something to my heels. Again, I didn't notice until the weekend, and just dealt with the dis-comfort. Well, with the next week being the final ex of the course my body decides to fail. Well there was no way I was going to say "Oh, I'm sorry PO, my footsies really hurt, can I call my mommy while I'm on my way to the doc?" No, I sucked it up, and did all of the patrols (some reaching 9.6km return trip in length). However, I don't feel this was a bright idea. Yes, I finished the course with my platoon, however I'm still in pain from the injury. I am still seeing doctors about it, and am in physiotherapy. I admit, I did ask the Physiotherapist in St-Jean to limit my restrictions for the weekend because I wanted to be on parade, but I feel like limiting was a mistake. I don't know how long it will take to heal properly, however I feel if I addressed the issue sooner I may be in a better shape. 

I guess what I'm saying is that the system is a double edged blade, and depending on what's wrong, and who you see to deal with the problem will determine how well of an outcome you have. Having seen it from both sides, I feel there could be some fixing up to be done, however, with the amount of staff they have vs. how many MIRC's they have come through, I'd say they are doing a good job there. My only fear is that others will mark me as a MIRC due to a legitimate injury.


----------



## medaid (13 Feb 2008)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Soooo, all those guys who get injured on Pathfinder, Clearance Diver, Ranger, or any other hard charger course have only themselves to blame, and were weak and ill prepared?   Wow, been watching Patton a bit too much, lately?  Can't wait to see the bunch of fire pissing, *** in the grass medics you're gonna be leading.  Section attacks across the Fd Amb parking lot every morning.  Get a grip.



Kat,

    First of all I wasn't inferring to those who are doing specialty courses. I was talking about those doing BMQ, as the topic and thread was referring to. Those who attend Pathfinder, CD, Ranger or sniper, or Para, or anything else already KNOW what they're getting themselves into, who are motivated individuals that have a relatively good level of fitness. I also said that there are factors not within your control when you get injured and those are a different story. Despite you quoting me, I guess you never actually read what I said. 

Scout,

    Your pothole incident wasn't within your control either was it? So hence it's got nothing to do with your level of fitness right? 

I have never said to blame all the injured for their own injuries. I am merely saying that those who are NOT fit, who are unable to do meet the basic standards required of them by BMQ should not blame the CF for having that standard. Instead they should re-evaluate their abilities prior to joining so that they have achieved the minimal standards required of them physically, as to prevent injuries. 

If a spike penetrated your foot during your course it has nothing to do with your fitness. Hell I've been injured plenty of times during my short career. Only 1 time was it my personal fault for being unfit, the other times I couldn't have prevented it from happening. I will admit that I have been unsuccessful at a course because of my injuries, which was a result of me being not fit enough for the course. Do I blame the CF for it? No. Could I have prepared better? You bet.


----------



## Greymatters (13 Feb 2008)

scoutfinch said:
			
		

> Blaming the injured for their injury like that harkens back to a previous era in the CF when people were told to push through the pain... you know the old "pain is weakness leaving the body mentality" which is foolishness...
> 
> Leaders can never allow their people to train through injury without treatment.  That is just wrong.  Blaming the injured for their injury will cause them to not seek the medical attention they can require.  That isn't fostering toughness.  That is bullying... and there is no place for such conduct in leadership.



There is a time when you push through the pain to carry out your duties, and worry about the injury later.  But during training isnt it.  It certainly helps when medical staff give a rat's ass and pay attention to the actual problem rather than blowing you off, which is a problem that I saw when I first got in, and was still there twenty years later when I retired, as was the problem of lack of leadership support for those who had valid injuries.  Fortunately, not all medical staff in all places are that way, so it would be unfair for anyone to say that all CF doctors and medics are untrustworthy, and not all leadership figures acted the same way either...


----------



## maxdupuis (14 Feb 2008)

Jimmy4Now said:
			
		

> I am sorry but...if you fall down a pile of dirt and are permanently disabled by that, are you really cut out for military service?  I fell out of trees as a kid, wiped out on my bike weekly if not daily and caught more baseballs with my head then with my glove.  I survived.




Even if you are in the best shape of your life if you injure your ankle then do a couple 5k runs on it a few sprints, jumping jacks and then a 13k march your making that injury worse and worse. Plus comparing when you got hurt as a child to someone getting hurt at 35 is flawed children tend to be more flexable and take falls better. 

These people were permantly disabled because they had to push through their pain after being injured making their minor injury very serious.


----------



## Pte.Butt (14 Feb 2008)

maxdupuis said:
			
		

> Even if you are in the best shape of your life if you injure your ankle then do a couple 5k runs on it a few sprints, jumping jacks and then a 13k march your making that injury worse and worse. Plus comparing when you got hurt as a child to someone getting hurt at 35 is flawed children tend to be more flexable and take falls better.
> 
> *These people were permantly disabled because they had to push through their pain after being injured making their minor injury very serious.*




There is such thing called an un-lawful order. This means you cannot be ordered to do something in morel. If you are injured, to the point where you can't do a physical activity, then your instructors can notwill not make you do this, you'll go right back to MIR. If these recruits felt they shouldn't take part in what ever activity, they should have let the staff know. If they felt they could take part, and ended up that much more injured, then it is unfortunate. Shyte happens, people are mis-diagnosed EVERY day in almost every hospital. I am sure the MIR staff didn't do it intentionally. But I feel for the injured recruits, must suck to be in that position the rest of their lives.


----------



## the 48th regulator (14 Feb 2008)

ButtA said:
			
		

> There is such thing called an un-lawful order. This means you cannot be ordered to do something in morel. If you are injured, to the point where you can't do a physical activity, then your instructors can notwill not make you do this, you'll go right back to MIR. If these recruits felt they shouldn't take part in what ever activity, they should have let the staff know. If they felt they could take part, and ended up that much more injured, then it is unfortunate. Shyte happens, people are mis-diagnosed EVERY day in almost every hospital. I am sure the MIR staff didn't do it intentionally. But I feel for the injured recruits, must suck to be in that position the rest of their lives.



Right, 

first of all it is immoral to disobey a command, second when did making someone do PT in the moring become considered wrong behaviour??

Great advice, tell the new people that it is okay to disobey a command because they feel icky about the pt....

 :

dileas

tess


----------



## Bigrex (14 Feb 2008)

Just soldiering on as many of us do, will only hurt you in the long run. After being hit in the lower back by a steel door on HMCS Toronto, I self medicated, even after reporting the accident I only sought medical help when the pain grew too intense that the Tylenol ES and ibuprofen didn't cut it. Now that I am older and that daily pain has intensified to the point the pain in my back can actually make me tear up after walking any distance, VAC and VRAB have stated that if the injury in 99 had been serious enough to cause a disability today, I would have sought more medical attention than I did. In their opinion, (their words) going in for a 30 day dose of stronger pain meds every year or two for my back, (even while on pain medication for severe arthritis in both knees, which had required 3 surgeries in the last 18 months of my career), and repeated X-rays over the years, wasn't proof enough for them that I was suffering from a disability from mechanical lower back pain. Disability pension DENIED, but still awaiting the appeal hearing. but since VRAB has said only 37.5% of appeal hearing decisions are favorable, I am not expecting much.

So my advice to anyone, is not to hide the pain, but don't let it keep you from doing your job either, but by letting the medical staff know you require regular medication to subdue the pain, even if you don't use it daily, and you do your job, you will be covered if and when the condition worsens, without putting your career on the line for being medically unfit. 

So if one disabled veteran doesn't have to go through the three year fight that I've had to endure, I can at least say my experience helped someone.


----------



## schart28 (14 Feb 2008)

They tried stating that I i had not complained enought but it did not work. This is not a criteria to refuse someone.


----------



## Staff Weenie (14 Feb 2008)

My advice to folks - if you are ever injured as a result of CF activity - for God's sake ensure that a CF98 is generated and placed on your file! And make sure you get, and keep, a copy as well. It's not a medical document anymore, it's easy to fill out, and it's become such a vital piece of evidence in determining the CF's liability towards the member years down the road.

My second piece of advice - if ever you believe that your injury is due to more than simple pulled muscle, etc - see a Doctor, CF or civilian, and get it documented on your med records (again - keep copies of everything you can - it's your health records - it's your info). And when you get there, ensure that *you and the Doctor communicate clearly*. Every patient will communicate their symptoms differently, and every doc will interpret them differently. Unless it's a doc that you have built up a rapport with (and that's very hard for Recruits and more transient CF members), there is broad grounds for poor communication to intervene and lead to a misdiagnosis.

i.e. saying your ankle hurts puts you right in line with the other 150 people waiting in sick parade (MSK injuries from PT etc can be the vast majority of daily fare in an MIR). Saying that this pain is localized in a different spot, and is far more intense than you've ever experienced before etc sets off warning bells to a clinician. 

I've seen troops brush off an injury so that they don't get RTU - but it comes back to haunt them, with no real record of it to help later.

Sadly, I've also seen the 'boy who cried wolf' happen - a perpetual Muffin in Distress who is really injured now gets overlooked. Not an excuse for our side to brush them off - but it does happen, and more than most would like to admit.


----------



## PMedMoe (14 Feb 2008)

And look how quickly a solution comes out......
CANFORGEN 039/08 CMP 018/08 131851Z FEB 08
DISCLOSURE OF MEDICAL/SOCIAL WORK INFO TO COMMANDING OFFICERS

As a side note, I have seen people in charge of troops, order them to do something they are not allowed to do.
Example (true story, I was standing right there):  A MCpl (Med A, no less) telling a Pte, who had a chit for "No stop and go sports", that they had to play floor hockey.


----------



## Bigrex (14 Feb 2008)

I agree, it shouldn't be, but that was what they said, and hopefully it will be corrected at the appeal hearing, but who knows what will happen since I will not be able to attend. They also denied a claim for aggravated OA in my right knee, stating that the lose of 4 degrees of cartilage and subsequent surgery within a span of 4 months, was merely coincidental that it was in the same time frame that I  had to do the majority of weight bearing on my right leg following surgery on my left knee (100% covered by VAC)  and that the medical opinion of my orthopedic surgeon was merely speculative at best when he said that it is only reasonable that excessive weight bearing for a prolonged duration, like i was required to do, would worsen an already existing case of arthritis, which had been only a mild case, but now requires a total knee replacement. the VRAB is a joke, and nothing more than a cost saving measure for the Government while claiming support for the veteran. How can any organization that is supposed to grant benefit of the doubt to the veteran claim someones disability is a coincidence, ignoring the specialists opinion altogether, utter BS.


----------



## childs56 (14 Feb 2008)

A over weight lazy couch patatoe should be able to join the CF and with in 5-8 weeks see a huge difference in their physicle abilite. 

I do not think the issue that these ladies brought up are directly related to the hard training and pushing the Military does during training it's troops. 

The issue they have is they were injured during that training and were misdiagnosed for some time. Then forced to carry on with inappropriate diagnoses.Doing more harm.  Not that the training was hard, But that the training must go on reguardless of the finale outcome to the health of the soldiers. 

Everyone here who has or had time in can remember someone they worked with who weatherd their injury, be it a sprained ankle, broken collar bone,  or other aliment. How many of you know  how those people are doing now. 
The old addage of "SOLDIER ON" does not apply today in some situtions. These sitiuations are the ones in Basic training where a Soldier has been injured and has long term effects after they were released. 

The response " they had a pre exhisting injury" does not cut it. That is why you go through a medicle. Once accepted into the CF then you are their responsibilitie. It is kinda hard to prove most pre exhisting injurys unless they are completely obvious. But most injurys can and do occur while in Military training. It isnt the fact these people got injured, IT IS THE WAY THEY WERE DIAGNOSED AND HANDLED AFTERWARDS that is the issue. 

Let me guess everyone of you are honest when you have to fill out a medicle form for the CF, how many beer do you drink? do you have back pain, joint pain. If you answer no to any of those then you are with out a doubt lieing. Think about it.


----------



## Rowshambow (14 Feb 2008)

I think it would only be a "mis-diagnosis" if the medical staff gets all the proper info from said soldiers! I am not a medic, but have dealt with soldiers before, they don't always give out the proper info!! If she wanted to be in the Army sooooo bad as she said, I bet she didn't put up a fight at all about it, because she would have been affraid of getting RTU'd, at least until she was released! I am willing to bet pound for pound (like quite a few of the MIRC'S in St Jean) that she was limping Mon to Fri, and then dancing up a storm in Montreal on the weekends!!


----------



## jeffb (14 Feb 2008)

Ok, so I'm not in the CF anymore (although I'm in the process of getting back in) but I have been through QL-2 (albeit 10 years ago) so I have a pretty good idea of what it entails and I have to think that one of the things you should pick up on your BMQ is the ability to operate at the extremes of your endurance. Moving over rough terrain, in the dark while its raining, in FFO is a skill that you may have to have sometime and maybe BMQ is the place to learn that. (Especially if you are infantry bound). 

I understand that there are apparently some hills in Afghanistan (sarcasm) so it's just possible that maybe it's a good idea to find out if you are able to climb up a hill while its raining without falling over and breaking your leg. Personally, I'd rather learn this in BMQ then while being shot at in Afghanistan. 

As someone that is about to start my BMOQ (with any luck in May), I hope that I get pushed as far as possible. I expect there to be injuries on my course and I've been training for over a year now to make sure that I'm in my peak physical shape and that I'm not one of them. If you show up on course and can't even do 19 push-ups, maybe, just maybe, you have not demonstrated the drive necessary to be successful as a professional soldier.


----------



## 1feral1 (14 Feb 2008)

ButtA said:
			
		

> There is such thing called an un-lawful order. This means you cannot be ordered to do something in morel. If you are injured, to the point where you can't do a physical activity, then your instructors can notwill not make you do this, you'll go right back to MIR. If these recruits felt they shouldn't take part in what ever activity, they should have let the staff know.



In morel ?? That word does not exist. Try immoral.

There is something called common sense.

Well, after 32 yrs of green skin in two armies, I don't think I have ever heard of anyone giving direct orders and telling someone to do something if they are hurt.

Asking them if they can carry on, and say if it gets worse (possible sprains etc) let me know, is a different story.


----------



## medaid (14 Feb 2008)

Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> In morel ?? That word does not exist. Try immoral.
> 
> There is something called common sense.
> 
> ...



Mate... he's a Pte(R) I think he just pulled that unlawful order thing straight from his Mil Law lecture...


----------



## Nfld Sapper (14 Feb 2008)

MedTech said:
			
		

> Mate... he's a Pte(R) I think he just pulled that unlawful order thing straight from his Mil Law lecture...



That he did MT but as being staff on his course I will refrain from commenting too much. But us as staff will not tell an injured candidate to just "soldier on". WE make the decision if we notice that a candidate is in injured ( as in the past weekend) WE make them sit out on PT (depending on the injury) and they become a grid reference for say weapons watch.

Butt me thinks you should sit back and make safe, and listen to some of the people here that have combats older than you have been walking the earth.

My 2 cents take them for what its worth.


----------



## 1feral1 (14 Feb 2008)

Moses smell the roses!

What has our army come to???

Next they will be questioning orders, if they are not already.

Even at the ripe old age of 48, when the SSM barks, I act without delay or question.

Shyte, maybe I am the dinasaur and out of step now.


Cheers,

WEs


----------



## medaid (14 Feb 2008)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> That he did MT but as being staff on his course I will refrain from commenting too much. But us as staff will not tell an injured candidate to just "soldier on". WE make the decision if we notice that a candidate is in injured ( as in the past weekend) WE make them sit out on PT (depending on the injury) and they become a grid reference for say weapons watch.
> 
> Butt me thinks you should sit back and make safe, and listen to some of the people here that have combats older than you have been walking the earth.
> 
> My 2 cents take them for what its worth.



I've had really good course staff, and I've NEVER heard the term "soldier on" during my short continuing service. It's staff like NFLD Sapper and others who've been through that and know the harm that it can cause. I will no tell my troops to "soldier on" because that's probably one of the dumbest things I've heard. There's a time and place, and training just isn't it.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (14 Feb 2008)

Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> Moses smell the roses!
> 
> What has our army come to???
> 
> ...



I don't think you are that much out of step Wes, it just this damn new kinder gentler military stuff and alot of this comes from the higher ups (i.e. Brigade and Area)


----------



## childs56 (14 Feb 2008)

On my Leadership no one came out right and said to Soldier on if you had an inujury. What was said is "if you fail to meet the objectives of this training scenerio then you will be RTU'd". It was clearly stated that you have the choice to carry on if you so choose to. And they did. 

They hadnt been to the MIR yet, so no one new how hurt they were at that time. 
I have seen with my own eyes in training where you were told to Soldier on. 

Being prepared for marching the hills of Aganistan, ask 1RCHA or PPCLI if they were ready when they first deployed for mountain warefare. See what the AAR's were on that one. 

The issue here is these people were hurt during basic training from what I read out of the article. Then misdiagnosed and let go after their injurys got to severe they could no longer work. 

The military washed their hands of them. Not a all to uncommon thing for the Miltiary to do even for it's seasoned veterens.  Although I would like to have more info into this matter it does show case some of the stereo types our military has seen in the near past with it's medicle treatment of Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen. 

Go to most bases and you can see people waiting for stress induced surgerys. Most of which have been misdiagnosed. This is why the Military has gone to a system now of sending injurys out to specialists once it is determined that it is beyond their scope of work. This new way of thinking has lead to a marginaly better system of getting troops fixed and back to their line of work. All bases suffer from this. 
The old school Cyrpocal for above the waist and foot powder below the waist has long been gone but has not been forgotton  in some of the training enviroments. 

Keep your eyes open as to what has happened, and what will happen, If you have never seen or expieranced this in our Military then good on you for not having to deal with this. If you have been one of the people who has seen first hand or had to deal with the system directly then my thoughts are with you and I hope a speady recovery to you.


----------



## 2 Cdo (14 Feb 2008)

CTD said:
			
		

> Being prepared for marching the hills of Aganistan, ask 1RCHA or PPCLI if they were ready when they first deployed for mountain warefare. See what the AAR's were on that one.



Physically ready? Yes. Kit wise ready, hell no, but that's really not applicable to this thread. Hope that answers your questions.


----------



## maxdupuis (14 Feb 2008)

ButtA said:
			
		

> There is such thing called an unlawful order. This means you cannot be ordered to do something in morel. If you are injured, to the point where you can't do a physical activity, then your instructors can notwill not make you do this, you'll go right back to MIR. If these recruits felt they shouldn't take part in what ever activity, they should have let the staff know. If they felt they could take part, and ended up that much more injured, then it is unfortunate. Shyte happens, people are misdiagnosed EVERY day in almost every hospital. I am sure the MIR staff didn't do it intentionally. But I feel for the injured recruits, must suck to be in that position the rest of their lives.


I was just responding to the quote where someone had made invalid comparisons and  in my post but if the medics say your good to go as far as your staff in basic training is concerned your good to go.
There could have been a number of problems here;
1) Misdiagnosed maybe but if the injury was that serious I imagine there would have been quite a bit of swelling
2) The private in training did not give the medic the proper information required
3) Like stated in a post before mine theres a chance that the injured person did not use the weekend to re couperate but rather did their own thing and soldiered through the pain to do it (maybe even in high heels dancing now theres a way to injure an ankle)
4) "Back home in Sydney, N.S., she said her civilian doctor was shocked to see that her ankle injury had gone untreated for two years" 
"They actually found that my injury had gotten worse after walking on it for two years," 

So... best case scenario she was walking around and god knows what else on it for ~12 months after being discharged(with pain might I add) Maybe even wearing things like high heels and what not that do not provide much of support. Though it likely didn't take a year after her injury for her to get discharged so she was probably walking on it longer. She never even saw a civilian doctor... WHY? While I am not a medical professional nor do I have knowledge in sports medicine this likely caused the injury to worsen after she was no longer in the CF it might of not even required surgery had she gone a YEAR earlier.


----------



## Roy Harding (14 Feb 2008)

Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> Shyte, maybe I am the dinasaur and out of step now.
> 
> ...



It's not us, Wes - it's the rest of the world that's out of step.


----------



## Greymatters (14 Feb 2008)

maxdupuis said:
			
		

> So... best case scenario she was walking around and god knows what else on it for ~12 months after being discharged(with pain might I add) Maybe even wearing things like high heels and what not that do not provide much of support. Though it likely didn't take a year after her injury for her to get discharged so she was probably walking on it longer. She never even saw a civilian doctor... WHY? While I am not a medical professional nor do I have knowledge in sports medicine this likely caused the injury to worsen after she was no longer in the CF it might of not even required surgery had she gone a YEAR earlier.



No, No, NO!  No common sense allowed, it was obviously all the CF's fault!  :


----------



## ModlrMike (14 Feb 2008)

Here's a thought... RECRUIT SCHOOL IS NOT FAT CAMP!


----------



## aesop081 (14 Feb 2008)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Here's a thought... RECRUIT SCHOOL IS NOT FAT CAMP!



Get back in the box you  :threat:


----------



## scoutfinch (14 Feb 2008)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Here's a thought... RECRUIT SCHOOL IS NOT FAT CAMP!




Hahahaha!

Too true.


----------



## ModlrMike (14 Feb 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Get back in the box you  :threat:


Actually, I'll be back in the 'box' next week.


----------



## childs56 (14 Feb 2008)

So then all her injurys initally occured when she fell during basic training, now as two years have elapsed she has prolonged the injury herself. After being told by a medicle professional (Mil Doc) that it was only a sprain. Finally she takes the time to see her doctor over this injury because it has become unbearable. 

How many soldiers injure themselves to downplay it. Then three, four or many more years later come back to do a claim on that same injury because now it is bothering them???? Initally they had more then enough ample oppertunity to seek medicle care. Yet they didnt, why?  Over the next few years they have not only aggravated but also made worse the inital injury, Knees, backs and feet come to mind here. Think about it. 

Wes I agree and disagree with your statements, very few times do I ever disagree with what you have posted, you seem to have your head on and use common sense when it comes to issues. 

Once the Miltary accepts a Recruit they take full responsibiltie for the well being of that individual. Unless that individual has lied to gain enrollment. The full responsibilite is to provide proper training, food and instruction along with full medicle and dental care to that individual Full Stop... 
From reading what was posted and reading a few more articles on this subject and watching the NEWs post about it. it seems these two individuals have a case agaisnt improper procedures on behalve of the doctors who treated them. That is the case here, not any other case. Untill both sides come to full light here who will really know what the end result will be. 
More then likely the CF will offer a cash settlement and make any findings sealed untill a full and proper review has taken place. 

Hopefully this will all come out and be dealt with properly and through the chain as it should be. 
The end result should be better care and better monitering for the soldiers in their intial stages of training. 

Other countries do it why dont we, 

Remember foot inspections,


----------



## Blackadder1916 (14 Feb 2008)

maxdupuis said:
			
		

> . . . There could have been a number of problems here;
> 1) Misdiagnosed maybe but if the injury was that serious I imagine there would have been quite a bit of swelling
> 2) The private in training did not give the medic the proper information required
> 3) Like stated in a post before mine theres a chance that the injured person did not use the weekend to re couperate but rather did their own thing and soldiered through the pain to do it (maybe even in high heels dancing now theres a way to injure an ankle)
> ...



You make a lot of assumptions from scant information in a brief news article.  There is no info about the time frame between release from the CF and being seen by a civilian doctor (which isn't always an easy thing these days).  There is no info about any medical restrictions and recommendations that she may have been given at the time of the original injury or subsequently.

It is not a patient's responsibility to know what information the doctor wants.  It helps if the patient is able to be clear and concise about their history and symptoms, but it is the doctor's responsibility to properly question a patient in order to elicit the required info and to recognize and interpret the signs of injury and illness.

There seems to a tendency among some on these means to suggest that the women mentioned in the article were at fault for their own injuries.  Suggesting that the unsuccessful recruits were perhaps responsible for their own injuries or the media is just picking on the military is a somewhat defensive position and does not address any possible problems (and remedies) that the story brings to light.  The reality of the situation is that these women were recruited and enrolled into the Canadian Forces.  They met all the standards that was required of them by the recruiting system.  It is not solely their fault that they ended up in St. Jean in, as has been suggested, less than adequate physical condition.  And judging from some posts that are on this forum, they are not a rare phenomenon.  Just because they are that lowest form of the soldier species (recruit) does not mean they are disposable.  The article indicates that both of the women mentioned sustained injuries during training.  I've known hundreds(?) of trained soldiers who've twisted their ankles during PT and even one CSM who seriously injured his back when a "mound of dirt" on which he was standing collapsed.  I don't think they automatically assumed responsibility for their injuries when the CF98/SI was completed.

CFAO 24-6 -- INVESTIGATION OF INJURIES OR DEATH


> 29. Blame. Frequently, there is difficulty in determining blame as required by QR&O 21.47. Blame should be considered in the light of its dictionary meaning of "fixing responsibility". When determining blame, regard should be taken of all relevant circumstances. If a member is responsible in part for his own injuries or death a determination to that effect should be made. Conversely, if another person or persons are responsible in part for a member's injuries or death the findings of the investigation should so reflect. Generally, *a member should not be considered to blame for his own injuries or death unless they resulted from wilful disobedience of orders, wilful self-inflicted wounding, or vicious or criminal conduct.*
> 
> 30. Attributability. As a general rule "attributable to military service" is interpreted as meaning "arose out of or was directly connected with service", and this meaning is also used when considering the aggravation of an existing injury or illness. While most injuries that occur while on duty are attributable to military service, the one does not necessarily follow the other. For instance, if a member was injured while on duty as a direct result of his improper conduct, it should not be considered attributable to military service. On the other hand, an injury might occur while not on duty but the circumstances make it attributable. For instance, if a member was injured not while on duty but as a result of the dangerous condition of military quarters, it could be considered attributable to service.



The assumption I make from the story is that the authorities accept that they probably screwed up on this one.


> Mercier also said the recruits' experiences were not what they should have been.
> "Things happen," he said. "*Maybe we didn't help those people good enough*. But I can tell you something, *an interview like the one we are doing [with CBC News] now makes us look at how we do business how we can do business better in the future*."



Though as unfortunate as the circumstances of these women are, they are but a minor element to what I see as the real issue (or what should be) in the story.  


> According to the Canadian military, more than 3,500 recruits go through basic training at CFLRS every year. In 2007, there were 234 injury accidents and 644 recruits and officer cadets were put on medical restrictions.
> *About three-quarters of the recruits complete their training successfully, the military said*.



What caught my eye is that twenty-five percent do not successfully complete recruit training.  It has spawned more questions for me and which hopefully should also be of concern to the CF.  
Is that 25% failure rate historically consistent with 2, 5, 10, 20 years ago.? 
Has the failure rate increased or decreased since the cessation of EXPRES testing during the recuiting process?  
What percentage of failures are due: 
 - Medical reasons (breakdown by Musculo-skeletal injuries vice other medical causes)
 - Disciplinary problems or inability to adapt to military life
 - PO failures
 - On request
What percentage of recruits who had been given medical restrictions complete basic training with their original serial or what is the average timeframe for completion with another serial?
Are there clinical practice guidelines (protocols) that the medical authorities use for screening and treatment of recruits?  If so, have these been validated and are they reviewed on a regular basis by the doctors/PAs who may use them?


----------



## Greymatters (14 Feb 2008)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> What caught my eye is that twenty-five percent do not successfully complete recruit training.  It has spawned more questions for me and which hopefully should also be of concern to the CF.
> Is that 25% failure rate historically consistent with 2, 5, 10, 20 years ago.?
> Has the failure rate increased or decreased since the cessation of EXPRES testing during the recuiting process?
> What percentage of failures are due:
> ...



My memory of those times is distant, but I think I would have remembered if 25% of my course, or any other paralllel course at the time, had a 25% failure rate... and clarifying why they are failing/releasing/getting hurt at so high a level would answer a lot of questions...


----------



## Wookilar (14 Feb 2008)

My concern with all of this comes straight from personal experience while at CFLRS on BOTP. I injured myself (not intentionally mind you  ) while out in Farnham. It was an obvious incident, very visible, everyone saw me crumple into a little pile on the ground (I thought I would bounce more  ;D). My staff were excellent, got me on the truck, went to see the medic, excellent again, put me in the van back to St.Jean.

The Dr's there (2 of them, civy's) were freaking deplorable. In 13 years in, I've seen a few crazy things in MIR's, but these two clowns took the cake. I also  had "a sprain." They took x-rays, looked at them, sent me to the shacks for the night. I went back the next morning because of the pain, they were not listening to me at all. Between the x-ray tech and the MCpl there, I finally got sent down town to the hospital with the same x-rays in hand. 12 hours later I'm in surgery getting 4 screws put in my leg to fix 3 breaks. How did they miss that and call it a sprain?

There is a possibility here that we may have a larger problem here than out-of-shape recruits, and it comes down to whether some of the support people we have hired really give a darn about us or just the fact that it's almost 4 pm and it's time for them to book off. At CFLRS, I never had one problem with any of the medical staff in uniform and I never had a good experience with any civilian med staff. That's just me of course, but I wonder if ti was the same civy Dr's that looked at the recruit that looked at me.

Wook


----------



## Bigrex (14 Feb 2008)

well the only real negative experience I've had with any uniformed med techs was in 97, after breaking a finger playing basketball in Norfolk VA. The staff down there placed the finger in traction and casted it with the pinky extended, but after getting back to Halifax they cut the cast off and put it in a removable splint in a position of function (bent, holding onto a roll of gause) and after a few days i told a Sgt that I had to go see for a recheck that it looked like the finger was shorter, And he said it was due to the swelling, and when i pressed it, he looked at me and "oh really, and where did you get your medical degree?", it was my frikin finger! But i was vindicated because the next time I saw him he apologized because x-rays showed that the bone had splintered and was floating around, and the actual finger was now 4mm shorter due to losing that bone. I realize these guys are trained and all, but they are still human, and they need to learn that we know our own bodies better than they know physiology, so when we point out something that is wrong, they shouldn't brush it off because it may not be a symptom of what has been diagnosed but it could be from some underlying condition that was previously missed.


----------



## TCBF (14 Feb 2008)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> ... What caught my eye is that twenty-five percent do not successfully complete recruit training.  It has spawned more questions for me and which hopefully should also be of concern to the CF.
> Is that 25% failure rate historically consistent with 2, 5, 10, 20 years ago.?
> Has the failure rate increased or decreased since the cessation of EXPRES testing during the recuiting process?
> What percentage of failures are due:
> ...



- I was a recruit platoon instructor in Cornwallis, and put through a little over 500 recruits there.  Wastage occurred for the fol reasons:
1.  Shoddy medicals not catching previously existing medical conditions (metal bracket holding spine together, etc.).
2.  Injuries during training - many recruits had never worn real leather footwear (or even shoes with laces before) and ten weeks was too quick to bring them up to the level of fitness without hurting their knees.
3. Failure to adapt to military life for psycho-social reasons - shoddy CFRC procedures (stop sending me "3"s!!).
All in all, the final success rate was about 85%, but that included pers gradding after three re-courses.  Obviously, the platoon succes rate was somewhat lower.

I then had the pleasure of teaching recruits at St-Jean.  Wastage occurred for the fol reasons:
1. Shoddy medicals not catching pre-existing medical issues.
2. Injuries during training.  An even less active generation now had only 80% of the time to get up to physical standard - with predictable results.
3.  Failure to adapt to military life.  This ratio was much higher in St-Jean.  My first platoon, I developed Cornwallis style, which was 'give the slow ones a chance to catch up if you can'.  When the RSM saw a frontage of twenty (a platoon of 58, if I recall) on the Sixth Week Drill Test he was shocked. "You have too many people!" he said.  It appears that the climate of command there merited their instructors on the perfection of the final product, not the overall success of the platoon.  Remember, on an eight week course, you had to have started to assess your recruits on Week One and have started to have failed those you perceived as discards on Week Two, or you would never be rid of them by Week Six and they would sewer your 6th Week Drill Test (and your PER).

You can imagine what happened next:  Platoons would commence with sixty and grad 28 to 36, sometimes INCLUDING recourses in.  A sixty man platoon might cycle through 84 people and grad 46.

A very expensive, inefficient and wasteful way to do business. 

My suggestions:  
1. Enrol as "full time part-time" on a six month contract. sort of like the RCMP do.
2. Immediately release previously existing medical conditions that were not picked up on the initial Part 2. Release authority to be the Recruit School, NOT Ottawa.
3. MMPI 2 EVERY recruit - no excuse not to.
4. Anyone who has not passed BRT after six months for any reason does not get to sign a regular contract. Release on new release item: "Not Economically Trainable."


----------



## ModlrMike (14 Feb 2008)

TCBF said:
			
		

> My suggestions:
> 1. Enrol as "full time part-time" on a six month contract. sort of like the RCMP do.
> 2. Immediately release previously existing medical conditions that were not picked up on the initial Part 2. Release authority to be the Recruit School, NOT Ottawa.
> 3. MMPI 2 EVERY recruit - no excuse not to.
> 4. Anyone who has not passed BRT after six months for any reason does not get to sign a regular contract. Release on new release item: "Not Economically Trainable."



Good ideas all around. My comments on each item:

1. Can be achieved by enrolling them on an FPS of six months. Upon graduation, TOS are converted to BE/VIE/IE as appropriate.
2. Agree. Release item should be 1D (Fraudulent Enrolment). We need to be certain that we focus solely on undisclosed pre-enrolment medical conditions. Exacerbations of disclosed pre-enrolment conditions require a different approach.
3. Absolutely! Good due diligence.
4. Could probably be rolled into the existing 5D by creating another paragraph: Unable to complete Recruit Training.


----------



## Infanteer (15 Feb 2008)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - I was a recruit platoon instructor in Cornwallis, and put through a little over 500 recruits there.  Wastage occurred for the fol reasons:
> 1.  Shoddy medicals not catching previously existing medical conditions (metal bracket holding spine together, etc.).
> 2.  Injuries during training - many recruits had never worn real leather footwear (or even shoes with laces before) and ten weeks was too quick to bring them up to the level of fitness without hurting their knees.
> 3. Failure to adapt to military life for psycho-social reasons - shoddy CFRC procedures (stop sending me "3"s!!).
> ...



Excellent post - I agree with the full-time part-time idea.  Where I was working, it would take about 3 months to release a recruit who wanted to VR - longer if you wanted to kick him out.  The file can be put together and signed off by the CO in a day, but then the BPSO has to see it and then it gets sent to DMCARM, then we have to wait for the release message.  We complain about the lack of instructors when we have to dedicate staff to look after these kids who just want to leave.


----------



## Pea (15 Feb 2008)

I just had time to watch a video of the news broadcast about these two ladies that were released. I thought one of the stories seemed quite familiar. One of them was on RFT when I first got there, and lets just say I couldn't watch that broadcast with a straight face. I find it pretty funny when someone is now basically saying their life is "over" because of a disabling injury, when the whole time in St.Jean on weekends off they were able to shop around the mall all day, and hit up the dance clubs at night. Come Monday morning they would be back to limping and complaining of pain.... until Friday evening came of course.

This type of stuff drives me crazy, and it's rampant in St.Jean. There were tons of people on PAT platoon when I was there who had "horrible injuries" all week, but come the weekend they were at the dance clubs in Stiletto's dancing the night away. It kills me that these people wear the same uniform as we do, and get paid the same salary, to do absolutely nothing because they "have restrictions". 

To know that a person could get away with so much while in St.Jean, and make a living doing nothing and now finally be released and going public and saying all these things, peeves me a bit. It's quite frustrating really.


----------



## TCBF (16 Feb 2008)

I wonder: does DVA have a mechanism to accept 'minority report' witness statements?  CF-98s always have a space for witness's remarks, do we need another form for people who can attest to actions congruant with malingering or fraud?


----------



## Blackadder1916 (16 Feb 2008)

TCBF said:
			
		

> I wonder: does DVA have a mechanism to accept 'minority report' witness statements?  CF-98s always have a space for witness's remarks, do we need another form for people who can attest to actions congruant with malingering or fraud?



While a CF 98 is usually initiated following an injury and often is the sole investigation into the circumstances of the injury, a summary investigation can be ordered (and often should be but is not).  I once had the bad luck to work for a CO who closely read the CFAO and ordered a ****load of SI's instead of the completion of CF 98s.  Guess who had to do most of them.

A properly conducted SI (or even an abbreviated investigation for a CF 98) should look at all factors, but unless someone offers such allegations (and proof of same) at the time of the investigation, the only course would be to so inform competent authority at a later date.

CFAO 24-6 -- INVESTIGATION OF INJURIES OR DEATH


> SUMMARY INVESTIGATION
> 12. When a death occurs a summary investigation must be ordered if a board of inquiry is not convened.
> *13. When an injury occurs and a board of inquiry is not convened, a summary investigation:
> a.   shall be ordered if the injury
> ...


----------



## Nemo888 (16 Feb 2008)

Due to CF medical incompetence/lack of resources/training we will never know what happened. Medics are paramedics, not physiotherapists. They don't have training in how to diagnose or treat musculoskeletal injuries other than broken bones and sprained ankles. The CF's lack of medical imaging promptly after injuries is almost criminal in my opinion. A CAT scan or MRI could separate the truly injured from the malingerers in 30 minutes. It could also prevent the stoic hard asses from pushing themselves to the point of medical discharge because of their abnormally high pain thresholds. 

With the level of fitness we need now for deployment recruits are going to get hurt. Period. Good training makes you push yourself beyond your limits.  Our medical infrastructure can't  deal with the concommittant injuries. It can't do what it wasn't designed for.


----------



## ModlrMike (16 Feb 2008)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> Due to CF medical incompetence/lack of resources/training we will never know what happened. Medics are paramedics, not physiotherapists. They don't have training in how to diagnose or treat musculoskeletal injuries other than broken bones and sprained ankles.



And you base this on your intimate knowledge of the MedTech CTP/CTS? Or perhaps your years spent at the school? Perhaps your superior clinical judgement and training?

It's bad form to denigrate someone else's occupation when you leave your profile blank.


----------



## Nemo888 (16 Feb 2008)

I'm a medic. The only medics who have that knowledge have learned it on their own time. I didn't even have to learn my cranial nerves or spinal dermatomes, but I did on my own time. On my own time I bugged the physiotherapists with annoying questions about taping, anatomy, etc. I just think things could be done better. It's medicine. There is no "good enough".


----------



## TCBF (16 Feb 2008)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> ...There is no "good enough".



- Sure there is.  This is Canada, after all.


----------



## xo31@711ret (16 Feb 2008)

As Mike said, but I'm old school, an old dinosaur, but I remember having to learn to learn the CNS / PNS;.... 'Oh. Oh, To touch And Feel A V....'


----------



## ModlrMike (16 Feb 2008)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> I'm a medic. The only medics who have that knowledge have learned it on their own time. I didn't even have to learn my cranial nerves or spinal dermatomes, but I did on my own time. On my own time I bugged the physiotherapists with annoying questions about taping, anatomy, etc. I just think things could be done better. It's medicine. There is no "good enough".


Then you must be a QL3, because it's in the QL5 material.


----------



## the 48th regulator (16 Feb 2008)

Pte Pea said:
			
		

> I just had time to watch a video of the news broadcast about these two ladies that were released. I thought one of the stories seemed quite familiar. One of them was on RFT when I first got there, and lets just say I couldn't watch that broadcast with a straight face. I find it pretty funny when someone is now basically saying their life is "over" because of a disabling injury, when the whole time in St.Jean on weekends off they were able to shop around the mall all day, and hit up the dance clubs at night. Come Monday morning they would be back to limping and complaining of pain.... until Friday evening came of course.
> 
> This type of stuff drives me crazy, and it's rampant in St.Jean. There were tons of people on PAT platoon when I was there who had "horrible injuries" all week, but come the weekend they were at the dance clubs in Stiletto's dancing the night away. It kills me that these people wear the same uniform as we do, and get paid the same salary, to do absolutely nothing because they "have restrictions".
> 
> To know that a person could get away with so much while in St.Jean, and make a living doing nothing and now finally be released and going public and saying all these things, peeves me a bit. It's quite frustrating really.




Oh what it would take to have someone with a camera phone, and a good usb connection.

I think once these videos were sent to CBC, alot of the whinning by these life devestated, ex-soldiers, would be exposed as being the true charlatans they are.

dileas

tess


----------



## Nemo888 (16 Feb 2008)

I should have known that. In shame I will now go study my surgical instumentation.


----------



## the 48th regulator (16 Feb 2008)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> I should have known that. In shame I will now go study my surgical instumentation.



huh?

dileas

tess


----------



## Yrys (16 Feb 2008)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Then you must be a QL3, because it's in the QL5 material.



He was answering a post from the last page...


----------



## medicineman (16 Feb 2008)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> Due to CF medical incompetence/lack of resources/training we will never know what happened. Medics are paramedics, not physiotherapists. They don't have training in how to diagnose or treat musculoskeletal injuries other than broken bones and sprained ankles.



Well, at a QL3 level, I'd have to agree.  But a QL3 shouldn't be kicking patients to the door without either a senior Med Tech, PA or MO or even PT having AT LEAST discussed the patient with them.

What I find rather amusing is the fact that our Sports Med instructor basically told my class that we get more time in MSK Physcial Exam than an average medical student does - certainly alot more than he did in school - and it's reflected from what my classmates are telling me working out in the civvy hospitals on rotations (other than on orthopedic services).  If you're so concerned about how little you were formally taught, guess what, you'll find that most medical learning is in fact self directed, and I doubt that there is any of us older school guys that will refute that we had to learn alot for ourselves by ourselves and or on the job to ensure that we could do our jobs right.  

MM


----------



## daftandbarmy (16 Feb 2008)

We had a good team at the med cetre at Depot PARA. 

The Med NCOs would size up the 'sick parade' each morning. Prior to this, they were warned of by the recruit Pl 2ICs as to who would be going sick, and why. Those with real injuries were seen first, as you do with a good triage type approach. Those who claimed to be injured - but were obviously faking - were invited by the doctor to have their temperature taken, rectally, as the first step in the diagnostic process.

Needless to say, the sick parade numbers dropped dramatically in the first month.


----------



## TCBF (16 Feb 2008)

Q: Know the difference between an oral thermometer and a rectal thermometer?

 8)


----------



## Cansky (17 Feb 2008)

TCBF said:
			
		

> Q: Know the difference between an oral thermometer and a rectal thermometer?
> 
> 8)


The taste. LOL


----------



## TCBF (17 Feb 2008)

Kirsten Luomala said:
			
		

> The taste. LOL



- I figured you'd get it!


----------



## Redeye (17 Feb 2008)

While it always seems that the ones that make for the press can be discounted fairly easily, I understand the situation from my own firsthand experience.  Now, that said, I'm not about to blame the CF entirely for the situation, because there were other factors at play.  Essentially, I went off to the Infantry School for the first time - and I wasn't entirely physically or mentally prepared for everything I was undertaking.  However, I carried on until running the obstacle course one sunny Friday afternoon I went over on my ankle, hard.  I don't remember a lot of that summer in detail, but I do remember how much that hurt.  I got carted off to the MIR who taped up my ankle, gave me some ice, some Motrin, and a chit for a week of light duties or something like that.  I went on trying to complete the course, but I had done so much both to my ankle and to muscles (compensating for the ankle apparently) that I was just euchred.  Being that I wanted to finish the course I just tried to keep going, and eventually my attitude hanged me before the medics could kick me off the course.

So the following year, I had trained up a lot harder and I was very motivated to get things done, had sorted out the attitude issue etc, and I went to Gagetown again.  It took almost no time in the field before I had somehow aggravated something and I was gone in a week, medical RTU.  This time, however, I got lucky and managed to get seen by a phsyiotherapist in Trenton who realized that there really was something seriously wrong.  Over time between his assessment and consulting with my civilian doctors, there's a hypothesis that I most likely actually broke my foot that first summer (no x-rays were ever taken) rather than merely spraining an ankle.  Now I've got a really screwed up good the requires orthotics and go faster boots (I actually get blisters on the tops of my feet from Mk IIIs with my orthotics in!) and it still gives me grief from time to time, but fortunately once that was all figured out I was able to head back to Charm School with comparatively more success, and since then things have been much better.

Was there deliberate negligence from the CFMS?  I'm not prepared to say so - because it may well have been what some suggested - that I didn't volunteer enough information because I was too interested in trying to push through the course rather than really paying attention to my own health at the time.  It strikes me that there's a bit of a conflict - we can't accept MIR Commandos trying to get out of doing any work (and believe me, I got accused of that, and malingering, and the whole nine yards) with no real reason - the ones who get off PT all week but can still make it to Sweetwaters Friday night... but it seems that at the same time by being so aggressive against them we lead legitimately injured pers to make decisions that will ultimately cause them more problems down the road...  Tough situation to reconcile.


----------



## Penny (24 Feb 2008)

I read the article in the starting post and it left me with more than a few questions about the fitness levels of the applicants mentioned. Also, I have seen MIR commandos and I know that some people do try to take advantage of the system. 

                That said, there were a number of good, strong candidates who got very sick with pneumonia last summer at St Jean and I don't see how any amount of pre-course training could have prevented it. These candidates failed their test, ended up in RFT, fought their way through weeks of intense training, while sick, and finally passed their tests. The point I'm trying to make is that I don't agree with negative wrap that RFT members often get. It is a very hard course, designed to challenge every limit you may think you have and see just how dedicated you are to getting into the CF. If you make it through RFT you will be ahead of the standard applicants in proving your determination, self discipline, and willingness to endure pain to get results. 

         If you want to bottom line the issue down to cost factor, RFT is a chance for the CF to recoup some of the investment that has gone into a recruit who made it thorough a very expensive and laborious screening process and paying for all those tests, appointments, interviews, and administration. They passed their first express test in their home town (and may have exceeded in the test sufficiently to beat out other applicants in the competition) , but for some reason failed their *second* express test at the beginning of the course (IAP or BMQ) or they failed their * third * express test at the end of the course.


----------



## aesop081 (24 Feb 2008)

Penny said:
			
		

> That said, there were a number of good, strong candidates who got very sick with pneumonia last summer at St Jean and I don't see how any amount of pre-course training could have prevented it. These candidates failed their test, ended up in RFT, fought their way through weeks of intense training, while sick, and finally passed their tests. The point I'm trying to make is that I don't agree with negative wrap that RFT members often get. It is a very hard course, designed to challenge every limit you may think you have and see just how dedicated you are to getting into the CF. If you make it through RFT you will be ahead of the standard applicants in proving your determination, self discipline, and willingness to endure pain to get results.



If those people had any motivation and determination there would not have been any need to send them to RFT in the first place. people who get sick are, of course, an exception but, the majority of people on RFT are not people who failed because they got sick for the test.

        



> If you want to bottom line the issue down to cost factor, RFT is a chance for the CF to recoup some of the investment that has gone into a recruit who made it thorough a very expensive and laborious screening process and paying for all those tests, appointments, interviews, and administration. They passed their first express test in their home town (and may have exceeded in the test sufficiently to beat out other applicants in the competition) , but for some reason failed their *second* express test at the beginning of the course (IAP or BMQ) or they failed their * third * express test at the end of the course.



Again. The CF would not have to recover ANY investment if those people had enough drive, determination and motivation to get in shape first. RFT deserves the reputation it has.


----------



## Penny (24 Feb 2008)

Aside from the ones who had pneumonia then -  I repeat, they passed the express test in their home town. 
A number of them also passed the second express test at the start of their course. 
Then failed the third express test at the end of the course. 
I'm sorry, I have to disagree with your conclusion.


----------



## aesop081 (24 Feb 2008)

Penny said:
			
		

> Aside from the ones who had pneumonia then -  I repeat, they passed the express test in their home town.
> A number of them also passed the second express test at the start of their course.
> Then failed the third express test at the end of the course.
> I'm sorry, I have to disagree with your conclusion.



Since the RegF does not test at the recruiting center i dont know where you go this idea that they "passed in their home town"


----------



## Penny (24 Feb 2008)

I won't argue online, it's poor etiquette. I will however PM you the reasons why I stated that fact.


----------



## danchapps (24 Feb 2008)

I know people that failed the express at the end of the course. They make it that far and something happens. Who knows why they fail, I don't, and I won't even fathom a guess. I know myself, I was pretty close. However having spent the 3 weeks prior to my test with one injury, only to suffer another only a couple of days before played a factor. I pushed through the shuttle run, even did a lot better than the first attempt at the start of the course. But I feel that the effort I put out on that portion sapped my strength from the other parts of the test. I know I could have done better, but couldn't because of the pain I was in. It's been about 7 weeks since my second injury, and I'm still in pain every day. I'm hoping physiotherapy works, because I want the pain to stop. I was very steadfast in wanting to make sure I don't cause more damage to myself. Some may think of me as a MIRC, but I think I'm more useful to the CF if I take it easy for a bit, and not cause long term damage. It saves money in the long run I think. It would be nice if there was no stigma that went along with going to the MIR injured. I know it bummed me right out, knowing that some of my "peers" thought I was faking.


----------



## aesop081 (25 Feb 2008)

Penny said:
			
		

> I won't argue online, it's poor etiquette. I will however PM you the reasons why I stated that fact.



I got your PM and its hardly "fact"


----------



## blacktriangle (25 Feb 2008)

There's no excuse to fail the express test. I have not done much exercise in months due to a swollen esophaghus, and still passed the test and got exempt...

I also helped coach a grade 7/8 soccer team...and yeah they all did harder stuff every practice. 12-14 years olds. 

The express test should not be something you can fail, unless you have a broken bone or something like that...


----------



## GDSM MTL (25 Feb 2008)

I've just completed my first weekend course of BMQ at St-Hubert Garrison in Quebec.  The instructors are hardcore but understanding.  However, I do see people who are definitely lagging and will guaranteed encounter problems later in our course.  Some of these people happen to be the most arrogant, ass-kissing candidates on the course, and yet lag behind when it comes to the actual work load.  They are not selfless, but instead are careerists looking for a leap ahead in the rat race that is their lives.  Be they Officer Cadets or not, everybody should feel an equality and sympathy for their peers during this course.  If these arrogant candidates happen to become injured, I will see it as ironic justice, for these are the candidates who push others to do what they themselves cannot.


----------



## armyvern (25 Feb 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Since the RegF does not test at the recruiting center i dont know where you go this idea that they "passed in their home town"





			
				Penny said:
			
		

> I won't argue online, it's poor etiquette. I will however PM you the reasons why I stated that fact.



All right -- let's sort this bit out.

Cdn Aviator, Penny is speaking to occurances during her training which occured last year (in the summer). It is indeed within the realm of possibility that some of them had done the Express test in their hometown prior to their reporting to Saint Jean, if they had been recruited prior to the policy change.

Penny,
The same situation that was applicable to your BMQ/BOTP is NOT applicable to the crop of recruits that have been reporting to Saint Jean since last year when the RegF recruiting policy changed. Express testing has not been a requirement for RegF recruiting since early last summer. Indeed some recruits who found themselves in Saint Jean last summer who had found themselves reporting for training very quickly after their enrolment would not have performed an Express test in their Home town -- and, quite possibly, your assumption that all pers on your particular course last summer had done so, may itself be erroneous. Some of those pers could have enrolled well after you and after the policy change, but may well have been on your course.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/57242.0.html

As well, regarding the pneumonia bits -- I just want to clarify that you are saying that these people were clinicly diagnosed with pneumonia, yet were still required to do an Express Test and perform full spectrum RFT PT while on their medical chits??


----------



## xo31@711ret (25 Feb 2008)

As well, regarding the pneumonia bits -- I just want to clarify that you are saying that these people were clinicly diagnosed with pneumonia, yet were still required to do an Express Test and perform full spectrum RFT PT while on their medical chits??
Exactly Vern; unless the individual did not present his chit to the pt personnel; No one (in their right mind) is going to 'override' a medical chit due to the ramifications and s**t-storm that would soon follow 'em if they did. Yesterday I had to give out 2 med chits for 'excused pt / express test' for individuals who are heading to our supporting base for their express testing end of this week.....yesterday was 'sports day' (no contact sports); yeeeah...


----------



## daftandbarmy (25 Feb 2008)

xo31@711ret said:
			
		

> As well, regarding the pneumonia bits -- I just want to clarify that you are saying that these people were clinicly diagnosed with pneumonia, yet were still required to do an Express Test and perform full spectrum RFT PT while on their medical chits??
> Exactly Vern; unless the individual did not present his chit to the pt personnel; No one (in their right mind) is going to 'override' a medical chit due to the ramifications and s**t-storm that would soon follow 'em if they did. Yesterday I had to give out 2 med chits for 'excused pt / express test' for individuals who are heading to our supporting base for their express testing end of this week.....yesterday was 'sports day' (no contact sports); yeeeah...



Canada: Going for Bronze  ;D


----------



## Southern Boy (25 Feb 2008)

popnfresh said:
			
		

> The express test should not be something you can fail, unless you have a broken bone or something like that...


 Agree. The CF Expres Test is designed so that if you are in at least minimal shape you should pass. IMHO there is no excuses for failing it unless you have a medical problem as stated...


----------



## slowmode (25 Feb 2008)

The thing about the express test is that its the MINIMUM standard you need to be in the forces. Its made so most people..if not almost everyone can pass this test. Just because you could do exactly only 19 pushups does not mean you should be in the military. The Military expects you to take the results of these tests, see how you did and IMPROVE your self in your physical fitness. Physically the more you do in the military you will find out that being Physically fit is a MUST. 

So in the end I say this, if one cannot pass a SIMPLE, and yes I affirm the word SIMPLE express test to get into the military then maybe they should either
a. Go find another job
b. Work on your PT then try again


----------



## RTaylor (22 May 2008)

I can see some people not passing every aspect of the CF Express test, time has changed as well as our culture's look on exercise, it's gone from being something in our everyday life to being an activity that's given very little thought.

Not passing all parts of the Express Test in the initial stages of BMQ, I can see that. What I can't see is how in the hell someone who's been on RFT for 90days or is in their 10th / 13th week of Basic can not do this. This shows lack of any effort IMO, and these people should be discharged unless they have a medical issue that has made them fail.

I'll be the first to admit that I can't do many pushups (the regulatory 19 I can) and have been working on my cardio. I've made a few sacrifices (taking a pay cut by going part time) to get myself in shape, there's no reason that anyone thinking of joining the Forces can't do the same.

As for injuries? I've had my Achille's Tendon + Muscle almost tear apart, I was put on a RTU 4 days before the end of my course and I never got to pass it. I worked through it by getting 2 opinions by civvie doctors (family doctor, outpatients doctor) and Im fine now. It's a shame that those girls were overlooked.


----------



## TN2IC (24 May 2008)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> I blame TN2IC aka Sgt. Schutlz for not getting out early enough to salt and sand the roads  ;D




Wow... old post. Sorry for the real extreme delay. 

Now let's think here... water freezes overnight turning into ice. Now for me to lay out some "salt" it would have to be sunny outside for it to work. (Duh)

And to sand, some/most bases do not use sand at all. I know here we don't. Nor will you see it on an Air Force base. I believe it's due to sand upsetting the aircraft engines. Hints why we use tow sweepers in those cases.

 ^-^


You know what?
Screw this... I'm taking that zamboni and running it around Sapper's shack, just so he can have a slip! And I'm not salting/sanding it either!



 :rofl:


----------

