I can just add something to that.
When I deployed, which was in 2004 for six months, I was taking blood pressure pills, which I take because I have hypertension. Some soldiers who are going over require medication for chronic conditions they have. That's presumably to make them function better when they go. There may be some who require antidepressants, but by and large, if they were on antidepressants, they would be getting those medications based on a clinical diagnosis that was already there. In the screening process, somebody would look at that very closely to see what medication they were on, for what condition, why they were taking it, and whether or not it was in their best interest to deploy. The decision as to whether or not somebody is there will have gone through about three levels of review before someone says, “You know what”--and everything is kind of risk-based--“we're going to take the risk on sending you without whatever”. And if you don't send them, the member will say, “Why can't I go? All I have is this condition. I take this medication. I function as well as any other group there.” This is the argument we have.
We're nowhere near the place where the Americans are. Again I'm not even sure of the validity of the press that was reported on that American study. Was someone trying to overstate a condition? Certainly that's not the case from my perspective with western soldiers deploying, because I see all of the screening and I get asked the questions.
Perhaps Major West can comment.