uk troops risk court martial
 

Herald 22 Nov

UK troops risk court martial if they refuse nerve gas pills

IAN BRUCE

TROOPS heading for Iraq will be allowed to refuse to take anti-nerve gas pills, but could then risk court-martial for refusing a direct order.

The pills are considered by many to be a prime contributor to the crippling effects of Gulf war syndrome.

In an apparent Catch-22 situation, the Ministry of Defence admitted last night that while individual soldiers would have the right to opt out of the tablet treatment, known as Naps, under a new policy of "informed consent", they could be punished for it.

The UK's biggest Gulf war veterans' organisation accused the ministry of "cynical and callous disregard" for the health of up to 15,000 British troops and of "doublespeak" in its new policy guidelines.

Shaun Rusling, chairman of the National Gulf Veterans and Families Association, said: "A total of 556 British veterans of the last conflict are now dead and more than 5200 remain affected by various debilitating illnesses which we maintain are the result of chemical cocktails given for our protection. Now it looks like a repeat performance is about to be enacted.

"It's a disgrace and a sad endorsement of our claims of Whitehall's cynical and callous disregard for the health of service personnel."

The Naps tablets, each containing 30 milligrams of pyridostigmine bromide, have been blamed for contributing to the Gulf war syndrome symptoms suffered by tens of thousands of British and American soldiers who took part in the campaign 11 years ago. The Ministry of Defence has moved to a policy of "informed consent" on the cocktail of vaccinations to avoid legal claims for damages, but the instructions for the use of Naps appears to breach those guidelines.

A spokeswoman said: "In 1991, the tablets were issued and troops were ordered to take them. If and when units are deployed to the Gulf for another campaign, the operational commander in the theatre of operations will still retain the right to order Naps treatment if the immediate threat is deemed to be high.

"The difference now is that an individual will be briefed on the benefits and then ordered to take the treatment. He or she will then have a choice of accepting or refusing. Those who refuse could face punishment."

Mr Rusling, himself a Gulf veteran, added: "It's Catch-22 nightmare. Take Naps and potentially put your long-term health at risk, or refuse and face court-martial.

"What price 'informed consent' when the alternative is the glasshouse (military prison), a fine, or possibly even discharge?"

American troops are obliged by law to accept any treatment deemed necessary. Those who refuse are denied the chance to serve outside the US.

from aspals - apologies if posted elsewhere.

what do you do?

Spit them out, perhaps?

.


.

LEAD BY EXAMPLE
 

To instill confidence in the Naps tablets, I suggest this:
Get the PM, deputy PM, and all the Defence ministers plus secretary of State in front of live cameras, and make them all take a pill, every day for a month.
They could hardly refuse after forcing the boys to take them surely?:eek:

Why gey the PM involved?
 

I don't see any advantage in getting the PM and his cabinet to take NAPS on a 1 per day for a month regime; it will prove nothing after all the pills were designed for use by humans.

Wasn't it quite commonplace in Vietnam (and other conflicts) for those of lesser competence, engaged in the regular issuing of instructions which obviously placed those beneath them at unjustifiable risk, to end up Strangely Shot?

Woff

Brilliant! That really has started my Sunday off with a good laugh, I wonder really how these people become Numpties, is there a training school somewhere or are they really non human?

Actually I think they might find it very hard to successfully court marshal any one for refusing to take an unlicensed drug!!

Informed consent...mmmm, another half arr*ed attempt by the MOD to beat EU legislation and claims for damages. Still smarting after pregnant females, Crown Immunity Act 91, prevalent offences declared illegal..the list goes on.

Informed consent or not any order along these lines could be deemed unlawful. Infringement of human rights springs to mind. Being told to poison ones self with a drug proposed to be more harmful than E...(and isn't that illegal under mil law!). Pyridostigmine bumps up neurotransmitters known as GABA (gamma-amino-butyric acids)...acting on the central nervous system..add this to the valium based diazepam in the injection pen...no wonder Gulf vets have an as yet unrecognised syndrome!

Consider well that the majority of service personnel now elect for and take good civil legal defence which by and large results in the rapid collapse of any case the Service Police and / or Legal Branches can put together. The spectre of hoardes of troops sat in the desert waiting to see thier lawyers does not bode well:(

I dare the grown ups to charge someone for failing to take NAPS, OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO the press would have a field day, bring it on!!!!:D :D

The more I think about it, the more I think Training Risky's idea is a winner.

But I have a cunning addition to this plan; the pills to be taken by the politicos would be drawn from a pool created by donations from prescriptions already issued to randomly selected serving personelle.

Not that we wouldn't trust them to take the same stuff, of course.

MoD officials, Doctors, and other Experts or Persons Of Rank who support the program and proclaim it's safety could be required to join the politicians on the dias for the daily ritual of "swallowing" as a condition of expressing their views.

Finally, a further randomly selected jury of serving personelle would monitor the taking of pills and the broadcast thereof, and ensure that no-body left the scene until digestion had commenced.

I can't see why anyone would be against this idea; after all, it's perfectly safe, and they have nothing to hide or fear. Do they?