Psychiatric Bulletin (2006) 30: 75. doi: 10.1192/pb.30.2.75-a
© 2006 The Royal College of Psychiatrists
Psychiatric Bulletin (2006) 30: 75
© 2006 The Royal College of Psychiatrists
Terrorist detainees - psychiatry or morals?
Simon Wilson, Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist
Maudsley Hospital, Denmark Hill, London SE5 8AZ, e-mail:
Simon.Wilson{at}slam.nhs.uk
Declaration of interest
S. W. worked as a Clinical Research Fellow in Forensic Psychiatry at HMP
Belmarsh between 2001 and 2002 and considers detention without charge or trial
to be wrong.
Robbins et al (Psychiatric Bulletin, November 2005,
29, 407409) describe the mental states of a number of men
detained in HMP Belmarsh without trial or charge. They all appeared to be
experiencing significant levels of psychiatric morbidity. The authors go on to
state that this is a result of the indefinite nature of their custodial
detention, although there is no evidence to support this hypothesis in their
paper. This is an important subject, and one about which psychiatrists have
been silent until the authors contributions. My concern, however, is
that this is really moral philosophy masquerading as psychiatry. What is
implied in the paper is that detention without trial or charge is abominable.
However, this is a moral argument plain and simple that is just obfuscated by
discussion of the mens psychiatric states. It seems to be saying that
because these men are unwell and made worse by being in prison, we should not
put them in prison. Given the well-established and striking levels of
morbidity in the ordinary prison population, one might think the same argument
applied for all prisoners a fortiori. However, this all seems to miss
the point. I think the situation would be just as abominable even if the
authors had shown the men to have become much healthier during their time in
custody. Where are the voices of psychiatrists in this moral debate about
whether imprisonment without trial or charge is right? Are we unable to speak
about that without a cloak of pseudoscience?