Sign in or 
Location: Inheriting the Vietnam War Legacy Discussion Forum
Discussion: THIS ANNOYS ME
Category:
Discussion Forum /
General Discussion
Share this
Kimber15 |
THIS ANNOYS ME
Dec 15 2008, 8:32 PM EST
I am going to jump up on my "SoapBox" (Ken get me down if you have to) I visited the DVA site yesterday looking for updates on the Family Study and publish right there in the Veterans New (online) is a call for more registration for the Study from and I quote "The Vietnam Veterans Families Study Families can sign up now " The Vietnam Veterans’ Family Study is now recruiting. The study is inviting randomly selected Vietnam-era Army personnel and their families to participate––10,000 each of those who served in Vietnam and those who didn’t." To say the least this is some what discriminating the other Service cause you know there are 3. So are they saying that the RAAF and the Navy Personel are not as important or require no investigation. I would really like for all of our members that are Navy or RAAF related to please make contact with me as I feel the need to jump up on the soapbox directly to the DVA and tell them exactly how we feel about this. This is the reason that the study will never ever get off the ground! 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you?
Keyword tags:
Army
Family Study
Navy
RAAF
Veterans
|
|
Maybellini |
1. RE: THIS ANNOYS ME
Dec 16 2008, 5:42 AM EST
Could it be (and please dont jump down my throat Kimber15!), that the Army personnel are the target group owing to their experiance on the ground, and the numbers of them in Vietnam, versus the numbers of Navy or RAAF?Im not saying this is so, (and in fact, am intrigued to know if anyone has stats on the numbers of each service that served in Vietnam) but could it be *a* reason for selecting the Army? Seems to me that if you are attempting to run a survey, particularly among a largely unwilling group of participants, that chosing the largest possible pool to select from, would lead to greater chances of participation, and therefore generate better indicators within that group. Then maybe if it applies to one, there would be precedence to apply the criteria to similar groups? Just thoughts. Do you find this valuable? |
1Bravo6 |
2. RE: THIS ANNOYS ME
Dec 19 2008, 5:10 AM EST
G'Day there Kimber 15,Ken is probably the best one to answer your question however, it's my understanding that the othere services are to be brought into the study at a later date. Rick. Do you find this valuable? |
Combat_Ken |
3. RE: THIS ANNOYS ME
Dec 22 2008, 11:28 PM EST
This is a segment of an email sent to me as your representative on the Consultative Forum for this study. Certain Acts limit the detail i can provide, but you'll get the message loud and clear...To clarify, I note National Servicemen in the control group. That group are actually National Serviceman plus others. The Vietnam Era/control group is made up of Army personnel who served during the Vietnam Era but weren't actually deployed and they aren't all National Servicemen. We have had a phone call from one gentleman who was concerned that he had signed up incorrectly in that group because he wasn't a National Servicemen - the group is not solely made up of National Servicemen. I'd hate to miss out on registrations in that group and I think it might be better to use words along the lines of "People who served in the military in the Vietnam War era but did not serve in Vietnam ". 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
Combat_Ken |
4. RE: THIS ANNOYS ME
Dec 22 2008, 11:31 PM EST
There are 13318 participants registered for the study including random and self select participants. Registration numbers as at 4 December 2008 are as follows:2325 in Vietnam Veteran Group 2568 Children and 1600 Partners in Vietnam Veteran Group 1261 in the Control Group 732 children and 659 Partners in the Control Group 1572 in Self Select Vietnam Veteran Group 1402 Children and 729 Partners in the Self Select Vietnam Veteran Group 194 in Self Select Control Group 72 Children and 53 Partners in the Self Select Control Group Do you find this valuable? |
|
Combat_Ken |
5. RE: THIS ANNOYS ME
Dec 22 2008, 11:40 PM EST
This data is all well and good, but as to your concern regarding Navy and Airforce families Kim, since the original call-out (as you quoted) was posted, DVA have introduced some new wording. They claim that there are two principal factors inhibiting Airforce and Navy families: (1) far fewer have reported physical or psychological issues in relation to their Vietnam service, and (2) far fewer of them responded to a pre-callout callout. The Airforce and Navy ESOs were (apparantly) contacted many months ago when this project was proposed during Billson's term as Minister and they failed to respond appropriately or adequately. Previous studies on related issues and the National Morbidity Study also provide compelling statistical evidence supporting the direction the DVA is taking with this study.Yet, in my wanderings among the Vietnam Veteran community I hear daily of issues within Airforce and Navy Vietnam Vets' families that are unremarkably similar to Army Vietnam Vets' stories...and equally unremarkable are the stories their children have to tell. Do you find this valuable? |
|
Combat_Ken |
6. RE: THIS ANNOYS ME
Dec 22 2008, 11:46 PM EST
It is interesting, however, how DVA have defined what a Vietnam Veteran is in this statement. If we go soley by their statement, then only servicemen and women in the Army are Vietnam Vets. What about the Navy and Airforce? To put it bluntly, this is the best we can hope for, so we gotta make it work for us. The design in the methodology is littered with gaps, limitations and inadequacies that make me almost ashamed to be listed with a PhD alongside the co-ordinators of this study's methodology. But it is our one change to tell our stories to the decision-makers. We can use these methodological gaps to our advantage. We can do this if we simply swamp them with emails from NAvy and Airforce families. Demand to be included. Demand a questionnaire. Demand to be heard. CC the email to your local member. Get the word out.....it's not the only way, but it's the most sure. Do you find this valuable? |
|
Kimber15 |
7. RE: THIS ANNOYS ME
Dec 23 2008, 12:18 AM EST
Thank you Ken for the information above. I am now on a recruiting drive to find all the NAVY and RAAF kids on each of our sites so that I can create some interest.What is the definition of a Vietnam Veteran? If this definition is Army Personel then I am very disappointed. Do you find this valuable? |
|
johnjarr |
8. RE: THIS ANNOYS ME
Mar 1 2009, 5:41 AM EST
g/day,dva tells me that they can only get it right if they use one contingent eg. army those who did active duty and those who didnt from the same era. I'm ex RAAF Malaya and vietnam and that's what they told me. johnjarr
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
Combat_Ken |
9. RE: THIS ANNOYS ME
Mar 1 2009, 7:06 PM EST
Thanks for this John, yet it still doesn't make sense. I have been assured at these Consultative Forum (CF) meetings that NO ONE WILL BE INELIGIBLE. RAAF and NAVY personnel are invited to participate as are their partners, ex-partners, children and step children. The DVA want the Control Group and the Core Group (first 10,000 surveys sent out) to be Army personnel because the overwhelming majority of claims for PTSD compenstation come from Army Vietnam Veterans. They still want Navy and Airforce Vets and their families. Comparisons and contrasts..... Do you find this valuable? |
|
johnjarr |
10. RE: THIS ANNOYS ME
Mar 2 2009, 1:51 AM EST
Ken, i agree with you. You will find that comparatively all services have a similar percentage of health problems from the vietnam era. I have been fighting the system for 40 years and the only thing that has improved is the duck shoving. they say the major number of PTSD claims are army, well the major number of ADF in vietnam were army. do the numbers. johnjarr
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
johnjarr |
11. RE: THIS ANNOYS ME
Mar 7 2009, 5:45 AM EST
g/day Ken, i was at a meeting today and present was a high ranking DVA person. The subject was, as this annoys me, i asked him the question why only army the answer there was more army than any other service. my answer ( crap ). He went on to say that the study would not be completed for fifteen more years. So i suggest we do our own study. Johnjarr
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
Combat_Ken |
12. RE: THIS ANNOYS ME
Mar 30 2009, 9:36 PM EDT
Ha ha. We are on it John. That gear is already in motion....Additionally, the DVA rep was responding to the available statistics that they had access to. It is a fact that more Army Vietnam Vets have reported to mental health professionals with issues than any of the other forces. Sorry mate, that's the stats. However, I agree this is crap. In reality far more service men and women are living today with issues created by their experiences. But they don't get picked up. They are not included in the stats. Look at reason for death, for example: suicide is high, but it doesn't tell us why they suicided. There is no mention of intrusive traumatic memories, or marital stress, or emotional difficulties due to unrealistic social demands.... stats don't lie, but neither do they tell the full story. Unfortunately its all the system has to go on....for now. Do you find this valuable? |
|
Kimber15 |
13. RE: THIS ANNOYS ME
Mar 30 2009, 10:26 PM EDT
I feel the need at this point to interject something here. I started this thread as Ken well knows to communicate my frustration at the system. The more time Ken and I spend working on these projects the more I become dejected regarding the government system. These Government Departments are run by people who have probably never had anything to do with a Defence Family let alone been apart of one. I feel the need to say something here at the risk of offending anyone (sorry for that) however here goes: The Navy and RAAF personel appear to be to be stronger, more resilent people in themselves and hence the reason why there are less reported cases of PTSD and the like from these arms of the DF. I can tell you from my own experience that my Dad has only just recgonised that he has a problem. I don't know if this is because the Navy and RAAF personel are held on a higher pedastool or it is just how it is but I do believe that this is the reason why the Navy and RAAF are continually forgotten about or dare I say non related to this subject as much as Army Personel. Our voices have not been as loud because we just get on with it. What else is there is to do. This National Study has never been about our Parents nor is it about our Generation I believe that this study is purely to see what the Government is going to be up for when our children come through with the largest report cases of health issues and post war related problems because the Government has failed our parents and are failing us and they want to make sure that they can do the same thing to our children. I think that we should just fill in the surveys as they come through and just get on with it because no matter how much noise we make as a group they are not going to hear us and they will take what is required and the rest of us will be forced to just go on.
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
SOLDIERBOY7 |
14. RE: THIS ANNOYS ME
Jul 23 2009, 11:25 PM EDT
| Post edited: Jul 27 2009, 5:57 PM EDT
...
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
Kimber15 |
15. RE: THIS ANNOYS ME
Jul 24 2009, 12:14 AM EDT
Thank you for your response. In no way was comment meant to offend anyone and I was not meaning resilient as a good or bad thing simply that maybe this is the reason why the RAAF and the Navy get a raw deal in these matters. What I was simply trying to say was that we all deserve to be heard, my children, your children, RAAF children. All of us have the right to be heard and all of us have the right to know that we have somewhere to go when we need help because believe me it is very lonely not knowing where to turn. I am sorry that this bothers you however this is what the government needs to read. How much this all bothers us and how much we just want our voices to be heard. We all understand how you feel and we all understand what it is like hence why we are a part of a special group that makes us who we are!
1
out of
1 found this valuable.
Do you?
|
|
SOLDIERBOY7 |
16. RE: THIS ANNOYS ME
Jul 24 2009, 1:56 AM EDT
| Post edited: Jul 27 2009, 5:55 PM EDT
...
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
1Bravo6 |
17. RE: THIS ANNOYS ME
Jul 24 2009, 5:10 AM EDT
Well now, SOLDIERBOY7, I'm a Viet Nam Vet, diagnosed with severe PTSD. I can understand the feelings you express, however, I'm from "The Old School" who were brought up to have respect for women and PARTICULARLY not to SWEAR in their presence. I realise that the youth of today lack the manners that my generation was brought up with but I still believe that you owe an apology to every woman on this site for your use of what I consider to be bad language.Rick. Do you find this valuable? |
|
SOLDIERBOY7 |
18. RE: THIS ANNOYS ME
Jul 24 2009, 9:59 PM EDT
| Post edited: Jul 27 2009, 5:54 PM EDT
...
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
SOLDIERBOY7 |
19. RE: THIS ANNOYS ME
Jul 25 2009, 4:28 AM EDT
| Post edited: Jul 27 2009, 5:53 PM EDT
...
Do you find this valuable?
|
