Therapists use Virtual Reality for Veterans

ahoehn writes "NPR is reporting that researchers from the University of Southern California along with the Office of Naval Research are simulating combat situations which cause Post Traumatic Stress Disorder for theraputic purposes. Their immersive virtual reality technique seems to consist of the game Full Spectrum Warrior, headphones, and a set of VR goggles. From the article: 'The object is to help veterans come to terms with what they've experienced in places like Iraq and Afghanistan by immersing vets in the sights and sounds of those theaters of battle.' One can only assume that soon someone be reforming carjackers by letting them play the GTA."

right

[Anonymous Coward]

Because reforming someone and treating them for PTS is entirely in the same ball park.

How callous...

[stienman]

One can only assume that soon someone be reforming carjackers by letting them play the GTA.

Because, as everyone knows, a criminal hijacking cars results in the same trauma that soldier experiences when his humvee is blown up.

I can't believe someone could even equate the "thrill" of performing a criminal act with the trauma of war.

The psychologists are trying to help the soldiers understand why they act and react the way they do after a traumatic event. One Mash episode scratches the surface of this type of therapy. A doctor experiences something which seems ordinary in the daily life of a soldier, but he later tries to prevent another physician from administering gas anesthesia to a patient in need of surgery. During therapy the doctor comes to realize the the "ordinary" experience was actually a mother smothering her child to prevent the nearby enemy from finding the group's location.

A PTSD soldier desires a normal life.

-Adam

Yeah you're super funny.

[BaronSprite]

Good job trying to patronize treatment that could help people whom selflessly risked their lives (even if you agree with it or not) to help protect your country and you. Your little GTA comment was completely unneccesary.

Cheap Shot

[kwilliamyoungatl]

One can only assume that soon someone be reforming carjackers by letting them play the GTA.
This is a cheap shop that vividly reveals the author's ignorance.
In the first place, there is an enormous moral difference between carjacking and attempting to kill and capture, for example terrorists in Afganistan.
Moreover, PTSS is a *real* issue. People going to war see unpleasant things, and dealing with that may be difficult. The intention is not to get them to feel bad about what they did, but to adjust to life where getting shot at is not an issue.

Scuttlemonkey should be ashamed.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

ScuttleMonkey, listen up.

[markybob]

I'm a disabled veteran and have struggled to come to terms with what I've been through during two deployments. I expect an apology from you and Slashdot in general for posting such a demeaning thing about those who've tried to protect their countries.

Re:Isn't this a little backwards?

[xstonedogx]

On the one hand you are saying ADHD and PTSD are "normal", but on the other hand you completely dismiss how others cope with these extreme experiences.

PTSD is also a natural human reaction to unbelievable emotional stress. We all have bad times, and dealing with them unaided is healthy practice and should be encouraged. However, one must have empathy for people who have killed other people in battle or watched their best friends get picked off by an unseen sniper. These are not normal experiences, and it is unsurprising that they can have lasting adverse affects on a person's ability to lead a normal life after service.

Sir, would you advise a cancer patient to deal with it unaided?

My wife suffered PTSD when her ex-husband almost died. She received therapy and no longer suffers from PTSD. She and I are owners/board members of a non-profit organization specializing in offering tools for dealing with mental health issues. Many of our communinty and staff members suffer from PTSD along with other disorders.

PTSD is a debilitating disorder that most people cannot overcome unaided.

You can check out the DSM-IV criteria for PTSD here: http://www.mental-health-today.com/ptsd/dsm.htm [mental-health-today.com]

I don't know what "bad times" the parent has been through in his own life, but I'm going to venture a guess that he is dramatically over-exagerrating his own minor trials.

You admit that you don't know, but you still dismiss his claims. The fact is, everyone deals with different circumstances differently. We all have different strengths and weaknesses.

If a soldier has no difficulty dealing with such experiences, or if a rape victim thinks his/her rape was "no big deal" then in my opinion, there is something seriously wrong with those people.

Again, everyone copes in different ways. What is "seriously wrong" is that these people have to have these experiences in the first place. How they cope with those experiences is not "wrong". It may be harmful, ineffective, unusual, or difficult to understand. It may be indicative of some other type of disorder or illness, but it does not mean there is anything "seriously wrong" with them.

What about the other side?

[Gorimek]

Think about how much bigger the post traumatic stress load must be on the other side(s) of this war, that takes 10 - 100 times as high casualities, and presumably has very few therapy options available.

I don't know much about PST, but I can't think it will manifest itself in ways that are good for anyone.

cost effective soldiers, respect for vets

[handy_vandal]

Why are they doing this? The soldiers knew what they were getting into when they signed up, they knew the risks. If they felt they couldn't handle the stresses of war then they shouldn't have signed up.

The army needs all the soldiers it can get. Recruitment numbers are not good. Stop-loss orders are in effect. Perhaps AWOLs are up, I'm not sure.

In any case, the army has a basic interest in keeping soldiers in fighting trim. If videogame therapy helps return a soldier to the battlefield, that's a good thing for the army. Second best, returning a soldier to a non-combat support task. Failing that, finding a way to lower VA costs ... such as replacing human therapists with computers.

Just a thought -- I'm not army myself, not really qualified.

I must say, too, that there are some profoundly insensitive posts in this thread. Don't talk to me about Wasting Taxpayer Money on vets. I don't happen to support the Iraq wars, but goddamit, soldiers keep getting fucked by their superiors, war after war. World War One: bonus marchers. World War Two, Korea: post-war bomb testing, irradiated vets, cancer, official denial. Vietnam ... where to begin, so many horrors to choose from. So show some fucking respect for vets, okay?

-kgj

Re:Imagine....

[value_added]

Even if it wasn't used for "therapy" but instead used for a simulation - one that medicates the need for younglings - then it's a good thing right?

Well,that's a tad more intelligent than a bullet to the brain suggested by someone else. Paedophilia is defined as an interest or desire, not an act. The word for the act is molestation or rape. Knowing what words mean is helpful to intelligent discussion, innit?

Satisfying desires or interests of any sort take an infinite number of forms, most of which are benign. With respect to sexual desires, watching X-rated videos found in your local video store is one form. I trust that requires little explanation for the /. crowd. Moreover, watching those videos, does not encourage you to become a rapist, cause you to become a rapist or otherwise make you guilty of any crime. Just as obvious, right?

The problem, however, is that the above common-sense logic, in the context of underage material, is turned on its head. Viewing such material is considered a crime. A serious crime. The reasoning behind this IIRC stems from a Supreme Court decision where it was argued and accepted that such material encourages the person act out on his desires. It has also been argued and accepted in related cases that the distribution of such material creates further demand for them, thereby creating a market of some sort, hence the new laws that make mere possesion a crime.

So, while watching Jenna Jameson do the nasty won't make you a rapist, watching Natalie Portman do the same (to use the current reasoning) will. And, irrespective of your actions or lack of them, you will be deemed a threat to society. And if you are found to be in possession of a topless picture of Natalie Portman, you could very well end up in jail.

Most paedophiles hide in their own maturbatory fantasy worlds and are of no threat to anyone except themselves. Similary, the most of what is considered kiddy porn, urban legends aside, involves no sexual acts.

With respect to the topic at hand, my own opinion is that a therapeutic use would have the same value as that of a Jenna Jameson video. Which isn't much. Satisfying, perhaps, at least to her fans, but not therapeutic. And for the records, I really don't know WTF Jenna Jameson is, and used her name only because I've seen it bandied about on / when the topic involves RAID devices.

why do veterans think they are better than others

[hildi]

just because you had a job where you can get killed doesn't make you special. lots of people get killed at their jobs, and lots of people risk their lives every day for others. the main difference is that most of them dont get medals or parades for it.

That Dirty Open Secret

[Markus Registrada]

"one must have empathy for people who have killed other people in battle"

Something none of the military brass like to talk about... PTSD, overwhelmingly, debilitates soldiers who have personally killed people. "Combat stress" -- from being shot at -- is incidental by comparison. The ones ordered to slaughter unarmed civilians, particularly women and children, get it worst. (Bomber pilots and artillery specialists do the most of that, but find it easiest to pretend; they don't usually see their victims fall.) Those who think honestly know draftees are really no different from civilians. Soldiers who "only" had their legs blown off get off easy, again by comparison.

My father used to call Viet Nam vets with PTSD crybabies. I asked him if he (as a Naval officer, earlier) had ever been obliged to kill anybody. He must have thought it over carefully, because I never heard him criticize a vet after that.

Re:ScuttleMonkey, listen up.

[typical]

Why? Construction workers don't get apologies, nor do landscape painters. Veterans aren't any different. If your recruiter told you different, he was selling you a line of shit. You worked a job, and maybe that job doesn't get the respect you'd like it to do, but nobody made you take that job either.

And the "protect your country" line is bullshit. That might fly somewhere in Central America or Eastern Europe, but the US hasn't been in danger that could be solved by conventional military force for a long time.

There is a difference

[Infonaut]

the main difference is that most of them dont get medals or parades for it.

Actually the difference is that soldiers (unlike even police officers and firefighters) work for the federal government as instruments of American political will. A police officer works for the city of Phoenix, and a firefighter works for Westchester County, but a soldier puts his life on the line on behalf of every American.

When a police officer saves a life or kills a criminal and gets a medal, he is recognized for the effort he has made on behalf of his community. When a soldier receives such recognition, it is for acts on behalf of the entire nation.

Also, there is a critical difference in that soldiers are called up on to kill people. That's not something that might come up in their jobs, it is at the core of their jobs. They are asked to do the very thing that society teaches us all not to do. The recognition that veterans receive is largely because soldiers not only take risks, but they are made to kill.

They are the proxies for you and me and John Kerry and George Bush. Whether you support the war or not, the soldiers are still killing and dying because our representative government sent them to do that job on behalf of all of us.

Olfactory

[Dun Malg]

The object is to help veterans come to terms with what they've experienced in places like Iraq and Afghanistan by immersing vets in the sights and sounds of those theaters of battle.

Sights and sounds aren't enough, I don't think. The sense most strongly liked to memory is the sense of smell. I by no means have PTSD like a lot of these guys do (I never came under direct fire, just had to worry about mines and unexploded ordinance mostly), but the smell of diesel exhaust or bug repellant still make me feel distinctly twitchy. I used to also get nervous seeing war movies, but after a couple years I was able to watch 'em fine without feeling like flipping out. But even to this day, driving behind a school bus if I catch a whiff of that diesel, my stomach tightens up.

Re:That Dirty Open Secret

[Markus Registrada]

The "military brass" has been very up front about PTSD in recent conflicts. There are far more measures taken now than when I was in the military 10 years ago. (Mandatory counseling before exfil back to states for instance.)

Please try to pay attention. Military brass take PTSD seriously, but use euphemisms like "combat stress". PTSD resulting solely from having killed people is never mentioned to trainees.

Your statement that military leadership "orders" the slaughter of unarmed civilians is a fucking joke.

I guess you weren't fixing pipes in any of those water treatment plants they blew up at the beginning of the first Iraq invasion. I guess you weren't among of the tens (hundreds?) of thousands who died of dehydration after having had to drink water that hadn't been treated in one of those plants. Who do you think they're after when they bomb a city, the stray dogs and cockroaches? Who do you think dies when a soldier at a guard station (under orders!) machine-guns a car that didn't stop at the right place because the driver got confused?

We haven't had draftees for quite some time now, how is that statement relevant?

Guess what: Iraq did. The overwhelming majority of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi soldiers blown to hell were draftees who would have done practially anything not to be there. They're really no different from civilians. ("Conscientious objectors", you say? How about "mass graves"?) Practically every draftee shot or blown up was -- as you'll gladly admit if you have even a shred of honesty -- no different from a civilian.

What the fuck do you know about losing arms/legs in combat and how easy it is "by comparison". I'd bet my left nut that most vets with PTSD would disagree.

Interesting that you (unlike they) won't actually be obliged to follow through. The therapists say those injured but who never shot anybody have an overwhelmingly lower incidence of PTSD. A good thing, they have lots else to worry about.

Re:Yeah you're super funny.

[patternjuggler]

Good job trying to patronize treatment that could help people whom selflessly risked their lives (even if you agree with it or not) to help protect your country and you.

It was supposed to be non-sequitur, or humorous. I think it's okay to make fun of anything, even diseases and events that are killing thousands of people or causing untold suffering right now- humor and snide remarks are a good outlet when you have no power over a thing. On the other hand, if you are the very person that caused the suffering or death to happen then making fun of it is really contemptible.

Re:what a crock of shit

[Infonaut]

1. our government is representative of money, not of me or of most ordinary slobs in the country.

The government is representative of its citizenry as a whole. It is certainly does not represent me specifically, given that I'm opposed to much of what it does on my behalf. But just because I don't agree with its current policies or leadership doesn't mean that it is not a lawful or representative government. Soldiers don't have the luxury of deciding not to obey the government when they feel it doesn't represent their interests.

2. lots of police are federal employees. ever heard of park rangers? the FBI? border patrol?

Sure. They get medals and awards and other special recognition, as soliders do. Generally they get it when they put their lives on the line.

3. police have to kill sometimes too. its part of their training. but they do it in a legal system, where they have to pay if they kill innocent people.

Agreed. Aside from those in federal employ, they are not being called to do so on behalf of the entire nation. Soldiers operate in a legal framework, but the parameters of that framework are determined by their civilian leadership, as we've seen in Iraq. As I mentioned earlier, soldiers are called upon to kill, in many cases in morally ambiguous circumstances. That makes their sacrifice exceptional, because they have to live with the consequences of that killing long after they are out of the combat zone.

4. if u are a proper right wing nutjob, then doctors who do abortions are also 'trained to kill' on behalf of 'society' and representative government. im still trying to figure out why soldiers are 'different'.

Doctors who perform abortions are acting on behalf of individuals, not society as a whole. When a doctor performs an abortion, they're doing it for one woman.

I'm not suggesting that you should value soldiers any more than you value a UPS driver, the bum on the street corner, your physics professor, or you dentist. But there are reasons why society as a whole treats soldiers differently.

Re:That Dirty Open Secret

[chamenos]

"Do we need to have another definition of "Lawful Combatant" discussed here? This has already been done to death in the Gitmo threads, but we'll go over it again."

no we don't, because i am perfectly well aware of the definition of what a lawful combatant is. the point of my previous post was that it is unethical to consider conscripts lawful combatants due to the reasons i have stated.

-----

"If they were all conscripts, why did they not kill their own officers and surrender? Why did they not overthrow Saddam themselves and retake their country? There's a difference between being forced to fight at gunpoint, and simply being a reluctant participant."

gee, that sounds so simple doesn't it? on the same token, if the chinese were all living in fear under their communist government, why didn't they just kill their leaders, overthrow the regime and retake china for themselves? doing something because you have no other choice due to the circumstances you're in, doesn't constitute free choice.

-----

"How do you propose we tell conscripts from Special Republican Guard or Fedayeen at 800 meters?"

we can't, and i never said we could. again, the point i was trying to make was that despite the laws of war and its supposed purpose of making war less chaotic, it introduces some moral quandraries that cannot be ignored. simply because i point out a problem, doesn't mean i purport have a fool-proof solution for it.

-----

"It's also better to be a surrendering soldier than a deserter. In previous wars, deserters and soldiers out of uniform were often considered unlawful combatants, who could be (and were) summarily tried and executed in the field."

and what do you think the opposing force does to it's deserters? bid them farewell and a safe journey? conscripts are caught between a rock and a hard place, due to no fault or choice of their own.

-----

"The German army was using teenage and elderly conscripts by the end of WWII, yet nobody cries and weeps and claims that those were "civilian" casualties."

it might be easier not to acknowledge it since dehumanizing the enemy makes war more palatable, but that doesn't make it right.

-----

"I see a great deal of this conceptual gerrymandering as a thinly-disguised effort by the International ANSWER crowd and their political allies to inflate "civilian casualty" figures, specifically to bludgeon the current administration about their "brutality" and the "unethical, unlawful" war. Sorry, but simply calling everyone, including members of the Iraqi Army "civilians," doesn't make it so."

think what you might, i have no political agenda whatsoever.

-----

"The distinctions between civilians and combatants are sharp in the minds of every soldier. As a matter of policy and military culture, we don't slaughter surrendering enemy soldiers, and we don't deliberately kill civilians. I was a field-grade officer in those same armed forces, and we don't do that... we just don't."

just don't ever think that conscripts are there because they want to. the laws of war might make them fair game simply because it's much more convenient and practical to, and that's all there is to it.

-----

"Not my definition... those are straight from the Laws of War."

a definition that you seem to have subscribed to.