PTSD

Part 3: Strengths and Weaknesses in Logic Brook’s use of top military officials and current policies as references to his argument helps strengthen the article by providing the reader with what seems to be reliable sources and data. Using direct quotes and recommendations from a Pentagon military official emphasizes the fact that mental health issues are being acknowledged and taken seriously by the government.

Brook also succeeds at addressing the complications surrounding the recommendation of mandatory mental health screening proposed by the sources. By addressing counter arguments to the proposed idea, Brook allows the reader to gain knowledge on the positive and negatives of the issue. Although Brook addresses the complications, he fails to support them with facts or evidence and merely provides assumptions, which weakens his stance. His failure to address potential costs or timelines on the recommendations causes the article to lack important information. This document will be useful because it provides a strong recommendation by top military officials on changing current policies regarding mental health screenings given to soldiers and why the changes should be made.

Part 4: Comparisons and Contrasts Brook’s main assumption that screening for PTSD with a mental professional should be mandated to increase diagnosis and reduce stigma, compares with Friedman [9], Rona [12], and Paulson and Krippner [14]. The article contrasts somewhat with subcommittee hearing [17] which asserts barriers to implementing new screenings such as financial costs and staffing.

Part 5: Uses in Essay I will use this source in the discussion section of my essay to discuss removing stigmatization through mandating mandatory exams with a physician.