Library Collections: Document: Full Text

The success of any system of re-education is contingent upon a very clear understanding that pensions will not be so prejudiced. Most of the countries at war announced that pensions were determined by physical condition alone. It was further stated that a man could take training and go out to earn more wages than he was paid as an able-bodied workman before enlistment and yet have his pension undisturbed. This did not sound credible to the men, however, and the facts had to be stated again and again. In all the Canadian hospitals, convalescent homes, and training schools placards setting forth this principle relating to pensions are prominently displayed.

The only country to delay definite statement on this point was Great Britain, and her early re-educational work was greatly handicapped thereby. But in the most recent British pensions warrant a soldier totally disabled in military or naval service receives for his lifetime the sum of 275. 6d. per week. In proportion to rank this sum is increased. For pension rating a man is accounted totally disabled if he has lost two or more limbs, a limb and an eye, the sight of both eyes, or incurred other stated disabilities. He is regarded as being eighty per cent, disabled -- and thus entitled to eighty per cent, of the total disability pension -- if he has suffered the loss of both feet, a leg at the hip, a right arm at the shoulder, or the loss of speech. A short amputation of the thigh, the loss of a left arm at the shoulder or of right at or above the elbow is regarded as a seventy per cent, disablement. The scale proceeds through a schedule of disabilities down to a twenty per cent, disability, for which one-fifth of the total disability rate is paid. For lesser injuries the man is paid, once and for all, a lump sum, termed a gratuity.

The warrant states that "when a permanent pension has been granted it shall not be altered on account of any change in the man's earning capacity, whether resulting from training or other cause." A certain injury, therefore, means a certain pension, and there is no authority with discretion to decrease the amount. When this was once clearly understood it made all the difference in the world in the attitude of the men toward re-educational proposals. Many men who have been trained are, with both their wages and pension, better off financially, than before their injury. For a man with both legs off, from the economic point of view clearly is not totally disabled, and even without a pension might earn more than before his enlistment in the army.

With the pension difficulty out of the way, we must return to the effort to have the man decide to carry on to self-support. There are several considerations pertinent to his decision.

First is the attraction of the temporary war job. Under the abnormal labor conditions existing in time of war even a disabled man can go out and get employment at an amazing wage. That such a job is temporary, that it has no future, and that it affords no experience of value are truths only evident on second thought. They must be clearly demonstrated to the wounded man.

In the second place the soldier has been long from the routine and responsibilities of the civilian community. His life has been one of danger and excitement, but as related to the ordinary functions of existence has been automatic, regulated in every particular. A man will view with reluctance a return to the responsibilities of a voluntary enterprise, such as his course of training will be.

In illustration of this state of mind Major John L. Todd, of Canada, cites the case of a returned officer who found it difficult to make up his mind in the ordering of a meal from a menu placed before him. "A civilian is accustomed to order his meals, to do everything for himself. He goes into the army and serves four years, during which time all his meals are chosen for him. The hour when he should go to his meals is decided for him. Suddenly wounded, he is no longer fit to be a soldier, and turned out into the world to unlearn just those things which have been taught him with such pains and effort."

With regard to the reluctance to take up again a regular routine, it can be argued that a man must, sooner or later, re-assume his civilian responsibilities, and that this will be much easier and more satisfactory if he has prepared to meet them.

The third consideration is that the soldier has been away from home for a long period, and his most urgent desire is to get back to his family and friends. Against this desire, a discussion of prospects for the future does not seem to carry much weight. Tactful persuasion of the man, however, supported by the encouragement that the social workers dealing with the family are able to inspire can often effect the right result.

And finally is the tendency of the disabled soldier to conceive that he has done his duty by his country and that he should now be supported for the rest of his natural days at national expense. This is largely a question of personal character. The weak and shiftless come easily to this servile point of view, the strong and self-dependent shun it vigorously. Again, the family influence will often be the deciding factor, and this can be largely moulded by the home service visitors. The adviser in the hospital has here a job in character building and it will be found that this type of effort is essential all through the rehabilitation process.