PTSD Forum site - Vetting Process

Discussion in 'Professionally Qualified, RAMC and QARANC' started by SkiCarver, Aug 13, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. A few arrsers are discussing the feasibility of the 'PTSD forum' idea. One major concern is the vetting of members.

    Ideally, the membership process should be quick and simple, with the user being granted extra capabilities, (being able to use private forums for example) following a 'vetting process' which confirms that they are a veteran.

    The idea being that users can then have confidence that the person they are communicating with is unlikely to be a journalist looking for a juicy story, or some BB or walt.

    How can this be achieved, bearing in mind that the site resources will be very limited?

  2. I don't want to get caught by a journalist or researcher either. Seems that some would make contact just to find out about PTSD, and the treatment process, either for editorials or for their own friends. It does happen....

    Lock them out, with the Walts and the Ladettes, and keep the Forum for genuine PTSD sufferers, please. No offence meant to anyone, but we are in fact quite vulnerable. I love my friends here, but I can't take risks...

  3. WM,

    this is just a feasibility study at the moment. One aspect that we are very concerned about, which could ruin the whole thing, is 'undesireables' getting in. We need a resonably robust process for ensureing 'full members' are Veterans and if possible, veterans with PTSD or other service related conditions.

    Any suggestions for how we achieve the above would be greatly appreciated.

  4. Ski, just a clarification: are you talking about "veterans" in terms of someone being a veteran of a conflict / peacekeeping 'experience' or "veterans" in terms of former, not current, servicemen and women?
  5. Great news, I would welcome the idea of a secure forum, one way is foe the applicant to apply for an application form which is filled out with,
    1. Service number (or part of)
    2. Brief account of Service
    3. Scanned page of red book for ex-servicemen/women
    4. Declaration that what info is given is in fact true.
    :D :D :D
  6. DB,

    At the moment I have assumed that there could be severals 'levels' of membership. for example.

    1. Anyone.
    2. Those identified as serving or former armed forces personnel.
    3. Those with PTSD* due to their service. *other conditions may also be included.

    these different levels could have access to different facilities of the site.

    The reason for having a dedicated mil PTSD site, is that the view has been expressed that PTSD due to operational experiences are very hard for civvie PTSD sufferers and therapists to relate to. those who can relate are those who have similar experiences. Implicit in that is 'operational experience'. However, nothing is in or out at present. This is just a feasibility study. The biggest stumbling block is ensuring that users are who they say they are, so any suggestions on this are welcome.

  7. EG,

    there are no guarantees at the moment! This is just a feasibility study.

    I think it is important that the initial sign-up is as simple as possible. The user could then supply the additional info at thier convenience. I guess the question is, what info do we need and how do we check it bearing in mind the minimal resources available?

  8. So called Vets/War pensioners like me will have letters confirming their disability, but how useful that is I don't know. How can anyone be sure that no researchers or undesirables are creeping in?

    If we are to rely on people's integrity I suggest we'd be asking too much. We sufferers have a multitude of issues, not least our vulnerability and personal security. I've made many, many mistakes because I trusted folks. Fortunately, names can be passed to the right departments...

    A couple of low life, unscrupulous folks up the line have had me over, in the last few weeks. People will take advantage of vulnerable folks. That's how it is.

  9. Ski- whilst the sentiment behind the idea is admirable, the practical workings of it based on this particular website would mean it would surely end in tears.
    Great discernment would be needed for a forum of this nature to be of positive use at all to to those suffering from PTSD, and also being unable to be sure of the genuine motives of fellow contributors is an insurmountable issue.
    The lack of awareness of the individual issues surrounding each contributor could also make it hard to know if more harm was being done than good.
    God forbid that a PTSD sufferer on a downer kicks off on a bad day and ends up with an ARRSE 'oxygen thief' tag!
    ARRSE just isn't a safe place to put trust in or unload or share.
    I wouldn't trust anyone here to make a correct evaluation or assessment of any person via the internet to be sure they could be supported correctly. ARRSE is not the place for this forum.

    Just my opinion.

    And this comment entirely illustrates my last point! With respect, you actually have no idea what you are talking about and are making false assumptions and faulty judgements about someone you have never met and have no accurate information about.

    Best regards.
  10. PTSD is only one of a number of psychiatric problems that you can pick up from your time in the armed forces. I feel that you would need to do a lot more work on this PTSD site before I come knocking at the door. So of us have had truly appalling situations from which we have ended up with PTSD. How are/we going to manage veterans with a wide range of presentations of there PTSD. Many of us have complex & long-term PTSD, which in some of us feel it is untreatable.

    Then you have the difficulties of ages, I was 27 when I was diagnosis with PTSD, I am now 43, When I was 27 I felt that the stress (Combat Stress) was my fault, the stress & symptoms (PTSD) was because I was weak, I did not understand at the time, that if you work with dead bodys for over 6 months (Gulf 91) there was a good chance the soldier would start to have psychiatric problems. Now I wear my PTSD as a "Badge of Honour" I now feel the Stress & symptoms of PTSD & other psychiatric problems were not my fault, but the result of my military service, and in my case exacerbated by it.

    So how are we going to address this issue on this site. We have been doing this for months/weeks, asking for a site to post on the topic of PTSD, the situations is not help by us posting all over the forum. We need to have one main post so all of the forum can see it.
  11. So how would those that are fighting the system at the moment trying to gain recognition of their condition gain access to this closed forum. After all others would have been down a similar track & be able to advice & help etc.

    Reg No, photo stat red book etc should be enough just to confirm present or past military service.
  12. I fought the system for a long, long time before I got my "letter" and compo. A competent and sympathetic GP would probably give you a med certificate suggesting PTSD.

    Your case is no less valid than mine, the only difference is, I've done the time. It still grips my sh'te that people are struggling to be diagnosed. :evil:
  13. Pox_Dr,

    its a good point about those who have yet to be diagnosed. I would like to have a good answer for you.

    All suggestions about how this could work would be welcome.

  14. I agree wholeheartedly with themonsstar....>, I also do NOT want WM's, groupies and barflies buzzing round any forum looking for a story or interested out of macabre curiosity, which I contribute to. I've just met one such "lady", and I will forever rue that day.

    I've known these freaks, and I've even met one or two. I for one, refuse to place myself at risk, or prey, to unscrupulous reporters and researchers, sat on their fat arses behind desks waiting to get paid. I am sorry.

  15. The 'levels' idea is a good one, however there are three problems that I can see:
    1) In keeping out barflies, etc, some genuine guys might find themselves on the wrong side of the distinction, without full access to the resource. This a big worry - if guys wanted to be denied help they would go through the NHS...
    2) However it is phrased, the 'levels' system would create a heirarchy which some may associate with the severity of their injuries - we have to be very careful that guys are not further damaged by any suggestionn (albeit unintentional) that they 'don't matter because they aren't serious enough'
    3)The outer (open) level would have to be so strictly censored (to deny journos any scoop) that it would be sterile of use for guys who needed it.

    My thoughts on this are that there should be one 'outer' forum, which is strictly moderated - snakeoil salesmen/barflies/ BB types would have to be stamped on rapidly. Journos and similar make themselves known almost immediately - it happens within one post here on ARRSe. This would be the first port of call for guys who are going through a rough time and want some immediate thoughts on it, without the hassle of registering and waiting to be accepted.

    The second 'inner' forum should have the security measures to allow guys to talk freely and openly - the army no/red book system would need to be entered on registering. That way there is a decent level of security, and both the concerned individual back from deployment and the guy who has suffered for a long time with PTSD are catered for.
    Until a better solution is reached, there should be no PM facility in the 'outer' forum- to stop the unscrupulous types taking advantage.

    Edited because first post made no frucking sense.