Dear VFP UK and Supporters,

Everywhere we turn, people are talking about the coronavirus – whether it be the news, social media, kids’ schools, the supermarket… we are surrounded.  Perhaps the concerns are being overblown.  I for one don’t trust 99.9% of what the mainstream media or government officials say, so even though I have worked in hospital environments and have a background in public health I have found myself not knowing who or what to believe.  I know I am not the only one who wonders who it is safe to trust in our country’s leadership anymore.

This probably doesn’t need saying, but a quick rundown of ways the peoples’ trust has been violated by our governments, mainstream news media, and our leadership in general that I can think of right now would include:

• • countless wars based on lies
  • collateral murder
  • cuts to social welfare programs
  • cuts to health care programs
  • out of control housing price inflation
  • substandard wages
  • bailouts for banks not people
  • staggering inequality between the rich and the rest
  • veterans getting screwed by the very governments that sent us to fight their bullshit wars
  • veterans getting screwed by charities that purport to raise funds for veterans but don’t
  • war profiteering
  • systems that mislead children into joining the military
  • people in general getting screwed by all of the above
  • war criminals being allowed to walk freely while people who have blown the whistle on war crimes have been thrown in jail and tortured, psychologically and physically
  • lies and half-truths about all of the above being reported as news…

The list could honestly go on and on and on, but we all know the situation.  And with all of that off my chest, for the actual point of this post:

Perhaps this is why the coronavirus is so scary for many – without trust fear can spiral out of control.  I for one have made my own decision not to engage in unnecessary travel, not only for my sake, but for my family’s and the general public’s as well.  I realize I am in a privileged position to be able to make that decision.  I know some people who are in vulnerable positions have to make that decision.  And many people have no choice.

During this time, it is important that we remember who we trust and that we stay connected.  For many of us, VFP UK is our family of choice.  VFP UK leadership are aware that many of our members may have to self-isolate because they are in a vulnerable group, whether it be based on age or underlying health conditions or both.  As a result, we have been exploring alternate ways of keeping in touch while doing our work.

The Policy Group recently made the decision to invest in Zoom, an on-line communications platform.  We will be using Zoom to host teach-ins around topics that we care about – whether it be addressing peace work, supporting Julian Assange, educating ourselves and the public about the costs of war, or just learning how we can all support one another in our activism.  We can also help regions use it to have on-line regional meetings – which could help our members who live at a distance from others to participate more regularly in the future as well.

The Zoom platform was relatively inexpensive on our end, and the app is free for members to download and participate from their smart phone or computer/laptop (download the app from Google Play or The App Store or visit zoom.us).  There is also a dial-in option available so members who aren’t internet savvy can still use a phone to participate.

We are working on a schedule of teach-in topics.  In the meanwhile, please put your topic suggestions or questions in the comments below or drop an email to coord@vfpuk.org.

We invite members to volunteer to lead discussion groups as well.  This space will be our space.  Let’s stay connected and do the work and support one another in the process, even if we can’t all get in the streets for the time being.

Peace,

Adrienne Kinne, VFP UK National Coordinator

 

 

Kapur, N., While, D., Blatchley, N., Bray, I., & Harrison, K. (2009). Suicide after leaving the UK armed forces–a cohort study. PLoS medicine, 6(3), e26. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000026

Summary (for full article, see link above)

By Bill Green

“Army adverts tend to prey on peoples’ insecurities and they also fail to mention the many downsides of becoming a soldier.
My goal was to highlight these problems and to remind people that joining the army is a massive commitment.  I hope to influence people to look at how Army adverts are overly attractive, especially to an extremely young audience.” – Bill Green, artist, student, concerned human being @___impactdesign___

Message from VFP UK – Our sincere thanks and appreciation to Bill for contacting us and his willingness to share his works, which correspond to issues that deeply align with our mission and goals as an organization. People deserve to know the truth before they enlist, and military recruiters and adverts should be legally obligated to fully disclose all potential outcomes of joining the military.  We will be sharing Bill’s poster series over the next week, to be followed with two short videos to be posted to our VFP UK YouTube channel.

Be informed before you join!

P.S.  We received some feedback that including percentages of increased risk was confusing for some.  As a result, the full series (including the poster from Series 1) has been amended to make it more clear who is at more increased risk.  Unfortunately, most research does not look at the impacts of military service on women, as there are fewer women serving in the military in relation to men and researchers find it difficult to conduct studies as a result.  The reality is that despite what researchers may or may not be able to study, women are also at risk when joining the military.  It is also helpful for concerned members of the public to do their own research on these topics.  Just know that results vary drastically based upon age and other demographics.  And, that some members of the military may do “alright” through the course of their service does not mean that there aren’t other reasons to be concerned about the military’s impact on the environment, destruction of foreign countries, murder of civilians, and being used to make arms dealers around the world very, very, rich – off of the backs of the taxpaying public.

Stay tuned to vfpuk.org for more information about these and other important topics.

“War Is Not The Solution To The Problems We Face In The 21st Century”

UK regular Armed Forces male suicide rates by age group and three-year time period, rates per 100,000 personnel at risk

Reem Abu-Hayyeh, Guddi Singh

To cite: Abu-Hayyeh R,
Singh G. Adverse health effects of recruiting child soldiers. BMJ Paediatrics Open 2019;3:e000325. doi:10.1136/ bmjpo-2018-000325

Received 14 October 2018 Revised 28 November 2018 Accepted 6 December 2018

Introduction

A report published by Medact in 2016, The recruitment of children by the UK Armed Forces: a critique from health professionals (ref: 1, 2), brought together for the first time evidence highlighting the increased risk of death and injury for those recruited under the age of 18. It revealed the long-term impacts of the British military’s recruitment of children under the age of 18, presented evidence linking ‘serious health concerns’ with the policy and called for a rise in the minimum recruitment age.

What is the problem?

It is impossible to know the exact figure but it is estimated that there are tens of thousands of children in armed groups around the world. The UK is one of only a handful of countries worldwide to recruit children (defined as any person under the age of 18) aged 16 into the armed forces as part of state policy and is the only country in Europe and the only permanent member of the United Nations (UN) Security Council to recruit 16-year-olds. In March 2018, the number of under-18 army recruits was 2290, making up 21% of all army recruits (ref: 3).

For clinicians, the recruitment of adolescents to the military is problematic because:

1. It denies the rights of the child, in particular the right to the ‘highest attainable standard of health’ and safeguarding from ‘physical or mental violence’, as well as the right to have their best interests as primary consideration in all actions related to them, including by lawmakers (ref: 4).
2. Military service during adolescence causes specific health harms during this critical period of development.
3. The arguments for child recruitment are unfounded and unsubstantiated in the face of the evidence.

Ignoring the rights of the child

Young people are permitted to begin the enlistment process at the age of 15 years and 7 months, with 2years of training beginning at the age of 16. Beyond their 2-year training period, they are then expected to serve in the UK Armed Forces for a further 4 years— taking them to the age of 22. Those recruited above the age of 18 are expected to serve just 4 years. Campaigners, health professionals and civil society have long argued that adolescents—who are unable to vote, purchase alcohol and sharp objects such as knives—are too young to be able to make the life-altering decision to enlist into the Armed Forces, and they risk becoming trapped in a decision possibly made at the age of 15. Research has characterised the period of adolescence as a ‘window of vulnerability’ (ref: 5).

Current practices of the UK armed forces for recruiting children capitalise on this ‘window of vulnerability’, and indeed do not meet the criteria for ‘voluntary and informed consent’. Over the past year, details of these practices have been revealed in the media. In June 2018, the Guardian revealed that the Army had been deliberately targeting recruitment advertisements on Facebook at vulnerable 16-year-olds awaiting GCSE results. Furthermore, a briefing document from the Ministry of Defence for Capita, a private company contracted to deliver military recruitment campaigns, referred to the key audience being ‘16 to 24 year olds’ in the lowest three social and economic groups.

Multiple attacks on health and well-being

Adolescence is the ‘period between childhood and adulthood, characterised by rapid development in psychological, social and biological domains’ (ref: 2). Military service during this period has long-lasting and complex effects on health (table 1). As child recruits are more likely than adult recruits to end up in frontline combat roles, they are more likely to experience physical or psychological trauma and to be killed (ref: 2).

Unjustifiable

In the face of such evidence for harm, why does the UK military continue to recruit 16-year-olds? Is the recruitment of adolescents a responsible piece of public policy? The main justification rests on fears of a ‘recruitment shortfall’: the British Army claims the UK is short of 8200 military personnel, with recruitment down by 24% in 2016–2017 and a greater proportion of staff leaving the military. Be that as it may, given the extensive harms described above, to put recruitment figures above the health and well-being of children and adolescents seems misguided and counterproductive for both the Ministry of Defence as a governmental body and wider society.

The second justification espouses economic and occupational benefits to recruits, many of whom come from disadvantaged backgrounds, arguing that the military offers training, discipline and opportunities to ‘rise up the ranks’. Again, we have seen that it is precisely child recruits from disadvantaged backgrounds who are at highest risk of adverse outcomes in the military. Further- more, figures from 2017 show that those recruited under the age of 18 constituted 24% of those who voluntarily left the Armed Forces before completing their service— this also increases the likelihood of lower mental health outcomes (ref: 6, 7).  As such, the UK should end its practice of recruiting adolescents to the Armed Forces. It would be both more financially sustainable and better for the mental health and social outcomes of military personnel if the Armed Forces instead invested in the training and well-being of serving personnel.

What can clinicians do?

Clinicians occupy positions of voice and power. The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH) states that ‘Paediatricians are committed to a policy of advocacy for a healthy lifestyle in children and young people and for the protection of their rights’. To fully realise this goal for this group, then, what can clinicians do?

Earlier this year, Medact submitted evidence to the Defence Select Committee inquiry into the mental health of UK Armed Forces personnel and veterans, focusing on the health outcomes for those recruited as adolescents (ref: 8). Medact will continue to publish research on this, alongside the scrutinising of past and current recruitment practices aimed at children and minors.

Mental health specialists and paediatricians interested in this issue are invited to feed into Medact’s ongoing research in this area. Paediatricians are encouraged to join the RCPCH Parliamentary Panel for further training around advocacy skills to be able to better represent patient interests. Interested clinicians can find informative resources on these health impacts and policy updates, as well as actions that health professionals can take, on the Medact website.

Contributors The two authors contributed equally to this paper.

Funding Medact received a grant from the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust (JRCT) for its peace, security and health work.

Disclaimer JRCT had no involvement in the writing of this Editorial.

Open Access This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

References

1. Medact.www.medact.org
2. Louise R, Hunter C, Zlotowitz S. The recruitment of children by the uk armed forces: a critique from health professionals. Medact 2016. https://www.medact.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/medact_childrecruitment_17-oct_WEB.pdf [Google Scholar]
3. National Statistics. Figures from UK armed forces biannual diversity statistics. 2018. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/uk-armed-forces-biannual-diversity-statistics-2018
4. Taken from articles 3 and 24 in the united nations convention on the rights of the child.
5. Baker KD, Den ML, Graham BM, et al. A window of vulnerability: impaired fear extinction in adolescence. Neurobiol Learn Mem 2014;113:90–100. 10.1016/j.nlm.2013.10.009 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
6. Roberts LS. Army: Resignations: Written question – 116515. 2017. https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-question/Commons/2017-11-29/116515/
7. Fear N, Wood D, Wessely S. Health and social outcomes and health services experiences of UK military veterans: a summary of the evidence: Department of Health, 2009. [Google Scholar]
8. Medact. Defence Committee Inquiry: Armed forces and veterans mental health. 2018. https://www.medact.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Written-evidence-from-Medact-DSC-Mental-health-inquiry-1.pdf
9. Gee D, Goodman A. Young age at army enlistment is associated with greater war zone risks. Forces Watch 2013. https://www.forceswatch.net/sites/default/files/Young_age_at_army_enlistment_greater_risks%28FINAL%29.pdf [Google Scholar]
10. Santa Barbara J. Impact of war on children and imperative to end war. Croat Med J 2006;47:891–4. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
11. Jones M, Sundin J, Goodwin L, et al. What explains post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in UK service personnel: deployment or something else? Psychol Med 2013;43:1703–12. 10.1017/S0033291712002619 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
12. Ministry of Defence. UK armed forces suicide and open verdict deaths: 2016. 2017. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/uk-armed-forces-suicide-and-open-verdict-deaths-2016
13. Hines LA, Jawahar K, Wessely S, et al. Self-harm in the UK military. Occup Med 2013;63:354–7. 10.1093/occmed/kqt065 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
14. Buckman JE, Forbes HJ, Clayton T, et al. Early Service leavers: a study of the factors associated with premature separation from the UK Armed Forces and the mental health of those that leave early. Eur J Public Health 2013;23:410–5. 10.1093/eurpub/cks042 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
15. Gee D. The First Ambush? Effects of army training and employment. UK: Veterans for Peace, 2017. [Google Scholar]
16. Gee D. The Last Ambush? Aspects of mental health in the British armed forces: ForcesWatch, 2013. [Google Scholar]

 

 

By Bill Green

“Army adverts tend to prey on peoples’ insecurities and they also fail to mention the many downsides of becoming a soldier.
My goal was to highlight these problems and to remind people that joining the army is a massive commitment.  I hope to influence people to look at how Army adverts are overly attractive, especially to an extremely young audience.” – Bill Green, artist, student, concerned human being @___impactdesign___

Message from VFP UK – Our sincere thanks and appreciation to Bill for contacting us and his willingness to share his works, which correspond to issues that deeply align with our mission and goals as an organization. People deserve to know the truth before they enlist, and military recruiters and adverts should be legally obligated to fully disclose all potential outcomes of joining the military.  We will be sharing Bill’s poster series over the next week, to be followed with two short videos to be posted to our VFP UK YouTube channel.

Be informed before you join!

POST EDITED:  Some viewers expressed concern regarding the statistic, 82% increase, and did not know what that number referred to.  Bill has updated the poster as a result.  Please visit articles posted on vfpuk.org and look into this and other important issues for yourself.  Knowledge is power.