Army Hearing Loss Claims

Sir, - As a reader of your paper for many years, I have always been impressed by the quality of your research and analysis of…

Sir, - As a reader of your paper for many years, I have always been impressed by the quality of your research and analysis of issues of major concern to the public and your balance in dealing with them. I am at a loss, therefore, to understand why such standards are often abandoned when issues arise concerning members of the Defence Forces, typified by Kevin Myers in "An Irishman's Diary" of November 22nd.

In that confused rant he states that soldiers, in availing of their rights to seek compensation through the courts for damage to their hearing, resulting from a failure by the State in its duty of care, are, and I paraphrase, not real soldiers, bring shame on the State and previous generations of Irish soldiers and are faking hearing loss. In choosing a military career, Mr Myers further alleges that soldiers should have expected, even welcomed, hearing damage and that they should be drummed out of the Army, for seeking any compensation. Hardly an objective of in-depth analysis.

In my world, soldiers enjoy most of the same rights as other citizens including the right to seek redress when wronged. It is the function of the courts to adjudicate on such matters. In my view, obviously not shared by Mr Myers, they generally do so competently. In his "appalling vista" world the scale of a wrong would negate it and soldiers would qualify only to fill their preordained niche in the natural order as moving targets. What group would he target next? Thankfully, the twin bulwarks of an independent court system and a free and informed press will continue to preserve the rights of all our citizens, soldiers included. I only hope that Mr Myers will not remain forever deaf to his journalistic obligations in this area.

I sympathise with the public concern at the scale of compensation being paid to members of the Defence Forces as a body. It is indeed a scandal that such payments are necessary. I would point out, however, that these payments are not for hearing loss per se but rather because, in the view of the courts, such loss was unnecessary and preventable.

READ MORE

I have served for 36 years in the Army and have recently sought damages for hearing loss. I am not totally deaf and continue in service. I cannot, however, engage in group conversation and have difficulty even in one-to-one conversation. Because of the strain involved I am forced to reduce my social intercourse to a minimum. I cannot enjoy a night out at the cinema or theatre and have difficulty communicating at work and at home with my family. I also suffer a continuous ringing in my head.

In summary, the quality of my life is seriously diminished and I am informed that it will deteriorate further in the medium future. I would gladly forgo any compensation for even a marginal improvement in my hearing but unfortunately my condition is irreversible. I leave it to your readers to judge if the average awards of £25,000 for such damage are excessive and if I accurately fit Mr Myers's caricature. - Yours, etc.,

Force Mobile Reserve, UNIFIL, Lebanon.