However in none of the psychiatric reports concerned with his experiences in Vietnam is there mention that his reaction to these incidents involved the requisite intense fear, helplessness or horror. Indeed Dr White has advised that although these events were distressing, there was no description of psychiatric symptoms at the time. So the evidence shows that [the veteran] did not exhibit the required reactive emotional distress at the time of these events.”

So Dr White said there was no description of psychiatric symptoms at the time. Of course there weren’t. If such symptoms were displayed by soldiers experiencing fear, helplessness or horror on the battlefield there would be such chaotic behaviour as to put the survival of the military unit in very great danger indeed. That is why a great deal of army training is devoted to soldiers suppressing their reactions to fear, helplessness or horror.

So what are the natural reactions to fear, helplessness or horror? There are four of them. The most common reaction is to run away. Another is to freeze, unable to move. Another is to be overcome and faint. The fourth, less common, reaction is blind, irrational aggression.

Army training replaces these natural reactions to fear, helplessness or horror with alternative reactions. Army training does this by endless repetition of ‘contact drills’ and the continuous inculcation of obedience to orders. If the natural reactions to fear etc were not replaced by these drills and the following-of-orders, the variety of natural reactions by the soldiers would cause the group to disintegrate as a fighting unit and place all its members in grave danger. The suppression of these natural reactions to fear etc, then, is necessary for the survival of the group on the battlefield.

The next question to ask is: ‘Did our veteran experience intense fear, helplessness or horror. Only a fool would suggest that the extremely dangerous and distressing events he endured did not produce these emotions in our veteran. Only a robot would remain unaffected under these extreme circumstances. But our veteran’s army training ensured he responded in ways that did not endanger the survival of the group. Indeed, our veteran’s army training enabled him to suppress his fear to such a degree that he was able to carry out acts of great bravery.

So it is indeed stupid of any determining officer to use the fact that a soldier ‘did not exhibit the required reactive emotional distress at the time of these events’ as a reason for declaring he does not suffer from PTSD.

Of course, the suppressing of the emotions of fear, helplessness or horror does not eliminate them. They remain suppressed only to emerge later in a variety of destructive ways. This is why there is a diagnosis called Delayed Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. This is why psychiatrists have tried to cure veterans by ‘flooding’ them with horrible images of war in an attempt to release these suppressed emotions. (It should be noted that the results of some attempts of ‘flooding’ have been disastrous with the veterans unable to cope with the intensity of the released emotions). This is why the Vietnam Veterans Counselling Service has a sharp increase in clientele after Anzac Day; the veterans’ suppressed emotions having been triggered by the days events.

Soldiers’ army training has proved very successful at enabling them to suppress these emotion so they can carry on fighting effectively. Medical science has not been as successful at preventing these suppressed emotions from doing a great deal of damage, both psychological and physical, to veterans in later life.

This flawed reasoning was not the only criticism we have of the decision to declare our veteran does not suffer PTSD. There is the issue of preferring the report of the Department-selected psychiatrist (one who regularly appears for insurance companies) over the report of the veteran’s treating psychiatrist. Of course, the veteran’s treating psychiatrist knows the veteran and his problems much better than a Department-appointed psychiatrist who usually sees the veterans only once. This is an old injustice veterans have always suffered and about which we have continuously complained. There is no doubt that in all fairness the treating psychiatrist’s opinion should carry more weight.

We have written to the Department suggesting an injustice has been done ‘our veteran’ for these and other reasons. It can only be hoped the decision is reversed.