Mental Health Professionals Role in Torture Assessment
Author: British Medical Journal (BMJ)
Published: 2010/01/29 - Updated: 2026/02/06
Publication Type: Reports & Proceedings
Category Topic: Offbeat News - Related Publications
Page Content: Synopsis - Introduction - Main - Insights, Updates
Synopsis: This research, published in the British Medical Journal, examines the ethical and practical limitations of involving mental health professionals in torture assessment during interrogations. Australian experts Derrick Silove and Susan Rees from the University of New South Wales argue against the practice of requiring psychologists and psychiatrists to monitor detainee welfare during enhanced interrogation techniques, despite claims by some US military officials that such presence protects prisoners. The authors demonstrate that no validated scientific markers exist to measure extreme pain or psychological trauma in real-time, making accurate assessment impossible. Their findings are particularly relevant for healthcare professionals working in military, correctional, and human rights contexts, as well as advocacy organizations supporting torture survivors and people with trauma-related disabilities who may face similar assessment challenges in clinical settings - Disabled World (DW).
Introduction
Mental Health Professionals Should Not Participate in Torture
No role for mental health professionals in the practice of torture - Analysis: Interrogating the role of mental health professionals in assessing torture.
Psychologists and psychiatrists should not be expected to participate in torture as they do not have the expertise to assess individual pain or the long-term effects of interrogation, says an expert on BMJ.
Main Content
The authors, Derrick Silove and Susan Rees, from the University of New South Wales in Australia, say some senior members of the US military have argued that a psychologist's presence is necessary to protect the prisoner or detainee from the "severe physical or mental pain or suffering resulting in prolonged mental harm."
They add that several leading scientific journals have also published papers by authors who support the presence of mental health professionals as protection for detainees.
But the authors believe that there is no established marker to assess "extreme experiences that cause pain or psychological trauma" and do not believe it is possible for professionals "to make accurate assessments of the level of pain or mental trauma being experienced by the detainee."
They maintain that it can be "notoriously difficult" to assess how much distress a detainee is experiencing. Indeed, there is evidence that "militants who are ideologically prepared may show greater resilience when tortured."
There is extensive research, they argue, that torture causes long-term mental health problems. However, "we do not yet have the scientific knowledge to predict with any precision what the psychological outcome will be for an individual."
The authors conclude that having spent years trying to reveal the damaging effects of torture, it would be ironic if health professionals were called upon to use their skills to participate in this practice.
Insights, Analysis, and Developments
Editorial Note: The intersection of medical ethics and national security continues to challenge healthcare professionals worldwide. While the debate over psychologist involvement in interrogations gained prominence during the early 2000s, the fundamental questions raised here remain unresolved: Can we ever truly measure another person's suffering with scientific precision, and should healers participate in systems designed to inflict harm, even in oversight roles? The authors' concerns about the impossibility of predicting individual psychological outcomes mirror broader challenges in trauma medicine, where two people exposed to identical stressors may experience vastly different long-term effects. As society grapples with questions of detention, interrogation, and human rights, the medical community's stance becomes increasingly important - not just as a matter of professional ethics, but as a safeguard against the gradual normalization of practices that violate the core principle of "first, do no harm." - Disabled World (DW).Attribution/Source(s): This quality-reviewed publication was selected for publishing by the editors of Disabled World (DW) due to its relevance to the disability community. Originally authored by British Medical Journal (BMJ) and published on 2010/01/29, this content may have been edited for style, clarity, or brevity.