Veterans Affairs in Canada

Veterans Affairs in Canada

2014

Keystrokes: 12312

Historically, armed forces have used many different terms to describe abnormal behaviour or mental illness among their personnel. Why has this been the case? In what ways does the use of the term “Operational Stress Injury” in the CF reflect this practice?


Introduction

        In 2001, the Operational Stress Injury Social Support (OSISS) program was created in Canada to meet the growing concern over stress-related injuries that members of the military seemed increasingly afflicted by. However, while this joint venture by the Department of National Defence and Veterans Affairs Canada came into being in order to aid those who were said to be suffering from “operational stress injuries”, or “OSIs”, it is important to understand the historical and contemporary meaning of this and related terms. This must be done in order to better understand the ways in which the Canadian Armed Forces  - and Armed Forces in general - seek to describe abnormal behavior on the part of military personnel, and the means in which they seek to provide support.

This essay will seek to clarify the historical context regarding reactions to military mental illnesses while outlining and mapping the reasons why certain labels or terms have been applied to abnormal behaviors.  Beyond this, I aim to propose potential research guidelines that could further help to explain this topic.

Historical Background                 

As Dr. English writes _____ the term “operational stress” is a relatively new label being used to describe the diagnosis of specific emotional, intellectual physical and behavioral reactions by service members exposed to stressful events. While the “OS” label may be new, the recognition of these negative symptoms in regards to service personnel is not.

        

Human Papilloma Virus is a sexually transmitted virus which, if left untreated, can develop into genital warts, or perhaps more worryingly, cervical cancer. Currently, cervical cancer affects nearly 500 000 million women every year, with approximately 50% of these women eventually succumbing to the disease. (Schiffman et al. 2007).  While there are over 100 differing types of HPV, only 1/3 of these may be passed from one person to another. From these, of particular note are HPV types 16, 18, 6 and 11 – the strains of which Gardasil claims to safeguard against. HPV-16 and HPV-18 are responsible for 70% of cervical cancers, and strains HPV-6 and HPV-11 cause nearly 90% of genital warts        (CDC. 2008). Gardasil was first approved for domestic useage in the U.S. In  late 2006, and has since been approved in 80 other countries, often through “fast-track” or expedited review processes.  

Controversy overview                                                                                                         

        Since the release of the vaccine in 2006 and the implementation of a nation-wide vaccination campaign, the controversies regarding Gardasil have been varied.  The HPV vaccine has been mired in ambiguity compounded by a lack of public knowledge of HPV. Media attention and investigative reporting, as well as heavy advertising on the side of Merck & Co has created a debate in the public sphere that has fed on such issues as vaccine efficiency and risks. Moreover, the  belief that the vaccine might actually encourage risky sexual activity has led to an ethical discussion that only furthers to cloud the choice on whether to vaccinate or not.  Indeed, the Gardasil vaccine has become a focal point for debate on everything from the role of government in public health to global health inequalities. However, and perhaps more interestingly due to the lack of spotlight on it, the debate on “non-stabilized” science and authoritative dissension in relation to relative actors will be one of the discussions which will be focused on in this essay.

Actors/Actants                                                                                                                    

        Undoubtedly, there are a large number of actors and actants surrounding HPV vaccinations in the U.S., a number that cannot hope to be fully extrapolated in the scope of a single essay. However, one would be amiss to not outline some of the key players in order to better set this into a pseudo-Latourian framework. To begin, it may be realized that the majority of actors and actants fall into three critical groups; those distinctly “for” HPV vaccination, those distinctly “against” and those who may be considered ambiguous. In this case, we may categorize the main players as such:                                                                                                            

“For”:

- The vaccine producers (Merck & Co)

- FDA

- Vaccine policy makers

- GPs (as a majority, inclined to push for vaccinations due to Centre for Disease control regulations)

- Epidemiology Researchers

“Against”:

• Anti-vaccination lobbyists (both of the “reformer” and of the “radical” type)
• Ethical and Religious lobbyists
• Epidemiology Researchers

“Ambiguous”:

• Parents of affected target groups
• Target groups

• Media

        Beyond this, we may include “non-human” actants which may be stated to have their own sense of agency. Important in this category are: the HPV vaccine itself, the HPV strains, and the litigation and patents surrounding the HPV vaccine.

        As one can see, the alliances created within these groups are linked as one would expect. Those who make obvious gains, such as the pharmaceutical companies and state agencies interested in a healthy general populace fall squarely into the “for” category whereas those who might be more inclined to worry more about the individual and individual health and welfare, while entailing personal risk tend to fall into the “against” collective.  The “ambiguous” groups are important to discuss, but first we must explore the reasoning as to why  Epidemiological Researchers fall both into both camps.