Psychiatric Bulletin (2002) 26: 395. doi: 10.1192/pb.26.10.395
© 2002 The Royal College of Psychiatrists
Psychiatric Bulletin (2002) 26: 395
© 2002 The Royal College of Psychiatrists
Military psychiatry
Julian C. Hughes
Gibside Unit, Centre for the Health of the Elderly, Newcastle General
Hospital, Westgate Road, Newcastle-upon-Tyne NE4 6BE
Sir: Military psychiatry is, as Greenberg et al (Psychiatric
Bulletin, June 2002, 26, 227-229) suggest, a unique national
resource. I agree (Psychiatric Bulletin, July 1997, 21,
418-421) that it should focus on those areas in which it can justly claim
expertise.
Greenberg et al state that military psychiatry is essentially
occupational and they mention its ethical and moral challenges.
As a serving Officer, I was certainly aware of ethical tensions. On the whole,
service personnel came to see me as a psychiatrist, not as an occupational
physician. The occupational role, however, meant that under certain
circumstances I had to act, not primarily in the best interests of the
patient, but to safeguard the military. This possibility was not made
explicit. Yet, military patients had few options but to be seen by military
psychiatrists.
In civilian life, we can make more autonomous decisions concerning whom we
see. The role of the occupational physician is explicit. Doctors only normally
act against the wishes of their patients when there are substantial risks
associated with not doing so. This is not always the case in the military,
because the rules relating to mental illness are attuned to the needs of the
organisation, not to personal needs. For understandable (but none the less
stigmatising) reasons, the military environment is intolerant of what it
perceives as mental illness. So, there can be an ethical tension between the
occupational role and the therapeutic inclination. This ethical dilemma is
another unique feature of military psychiatry and one that it would be
interesting to see addressed.