Psychiatric Bulletin (2000) 24: 354-355. doi: 10.1192/pb.24.9.354-c
© 2000 The Royal College of Psychiatrists
Psychiatric Bulletin (2000) 24: 354-355
© 2000 The Royal College of Psychiatrists
Homicide inquiries
Sameer P. Sarkar, Specialist Registrar in Forensic Psychiatry
Ashen Hill, The Drive, Hellingly, Hailsham, East Sussex BN27 4ER
Sir: Not many would disagree with Szmukler's article (Psychiatric
Bulletin, January 2000, 24, 6-10) but I have to take issue with
his interpretation of the inquiries regarding "the patient as an
automaton". One of the concepts he elaborates in support of his argument
that patients have feelings and a mind of their own is to ask us to imagine
that an aeroplane with a mind of its own decided not to follow the pilot's
landing instructions. But I do not think the analogy is very valid in relation
to homicide inquiries. One will surely agree that when a plane crashes, the
inquiry will have to look at what part or parts failed and why. If there was
wear and tear, why was this not identified and rectified prior to the flight,
and more important was this oversight a negligent act? If the plane had a
structural defect due to a harsh landing the previous day, which
was not corrected prior to the next flight, surely some one was culpable and
possibly negligent?
Equating a crash enquiry with a homicide inquiry is oversimplifying a very
complex and quite understandably an emotional issue. Maybe if we had civil
suits of negligence in homicide cases instead of inquiries, we would not feel
so aggrieved, as the team would have its chance to defend its practices (which
should in any case be within standards of reasonable care adopted by the
profession).