Library Collections: Document: Full Text

It is greatly to be desired that the families of men going to the front should know of the possibilities of re-education and re-employment and of the provision being made for the disabled, for it would mitigate not only a great deal of mental suffering over actual injuries but over prospective disabilities as well. It is well known that the greatest fear regarding service in the trenches is not the loss of life but the prospect of returning crippled. As one writer has well put it: "To die for one's country; if one could only be sure of dying!" In coming down in the elevator of a large New York department store recently, the day following the publication in its pictorial section by a great daily newspaper of the photograph of the first American amputation cases in France, the following remark was overheard: "Did you see those horrible pictures in the paper yesterday? I do hope that Jack will not come home that way; I would rather he be killed." Yet the picture showed only foot amputations, and to one familiar with cripples and their potential accomplishments such a disability seems a real inconvenience but nothing more. The woman quoted was suffering unduly in her apprehension.

It is not here intended to minimize the seriousness of the total disabilities, but these occur in but one case in a hundred thousand. The point is that many injuries that might be regarded as terrible under unintelligent handling in the past no longer remain so.

The second responsibility of the family is to understand the importance to the disabled soldier' of the proffered training for self-support, and to encourage him in every possible way to undertake it. The family must do more than avoid opposition to the soldier's plan for re-education; they must do more than give it lukewarm assent -- they must get behind it with every influence at their command.

Failure to have the family understand and support the program for the future of the disabled man may have disastrous results. In France the mother occupies an unusual place of authority in the family economy. A son may grow up to be twenty, thirty, or forty years old, but mother is still a chief to whom obedience is unquestionably paid. In dealing with the poilu, therefore, one must count on his maternal parent as well. At one French center of hospital care and re-education it was found that as a man would approach the point of his medical recovery and approach the time of entry on vocational training, his mother was liable to descend upon the hospital office, beat her umbrella on the table, inquire why they were keeping her son so long away from home, and demand his immediate discharge in order that she might take him away "to care for the poor crippled boy for the rest of his life." In vain were explanations and arguments regarding the efficacy of further treatment and training. She had come there determined to take her son away, and the scene would continue until her end was accomplished. And in most instances there was nothing to do but accede to the mother's demand.

But a better way was found of dealing with the families of men deemed likely to benefit by re-education. Under this procedure, when the soldier was nearing the end of his hospital care, the director of the institution would summon the mother to come in and advise regarding her son's future. She would then be addressed something in this wise: "Your son's medical treatment will in another week or two be practically complete, and we thought you might like to know so that, if you desired, you could make plans to take him home. But you know he is permanently disabled and will not be able to go back to his old job of telegraph lineman. We know that you expect to care for him, but he will outlive you, and later, since the government pension is small indeed, he will be reduced to a miserable situation. You remember the cripples from the war of 1870, how they begged or sold trinkets about the streets -- and you would not want your son to be in that fix. Luckily, however, he will not have to be for we have something else to suggest. Across the street is a school where the men are taught various skilled trades. If your son cares to stay for five or six months, and you approve, we will teach him to be a telegrapher and he can go back to his home town and get a good job with the government telegraphs. As a skilled worker still he will be doubly respected in the community, he will be a burden on no one, his future will be assured, and you will be very, very proud of him. What do you think wise under the circumstances?"

The whole situation is changed. Mother greets her boy with: "Son, have you heard what they are going to do for you?" And as the son has already been talked to regarding the program, the joint decision is assured.

This illustrates the difference between a family for or a family against the proposal of re-education.

The third duty of the family is to stand behind the man during his course of training and try in every way to encourage rather than dishearten him. Letters from home which recite all the troubles of life and none of the joys will not help the enterprise. The family reaction should rather be: "Stick to it; we are getting along all right and want to see you finish the job up right, now that you are at it." In other words, it is necessary to maintain the morale of the family in the same way as when the man is at the front. This is largely contributed to by home visitors such as those of the Canadian Patriotic Fund or the American Red Cross.