By Dr. Jane Herlihy
CSEL plays an important ‘back-office’ role to the many professionals
who are working directly with people asking for protection in Europe. An
example of this is our training sessions for the Freedom from Torture
medico-legal report team. When a doctor assesses an individual asylum-seeker
they gather important clinical evidence about that person, and psychological
research evidence can complement and support this clinical evidence by giving a
broader picture of what effects are likely, or possible. For example, a man might have inconsistent
memories of his torture in detention, and research shows reasons for
inconsistencies in people’s memory for traumatic experiences.
Earlier this month I was invited to run a workshop on research evidence
for doctors and psychologists writing medico-legal reports in The Netherlands.
iMMO is the Netherlands
Institute for Human Rights and Medical Assessment (Instituut voor Mensenrechten en Medisch
Onderzoek). iMMO consists of volunteer
doctors and psychologists who contribute to the protection of human rights,
especially by making medical assessments of suspected victims of torture and
inhumane treatment. The 45 assessors are trained by iMMO and
perform assessments working independently within the framework of the Istanbul Protocol.
 | |
| Dr. Jane Herlihy at iMMO |
I was invited to attend iMMO’s regular study day in the beautiful
medieval city of Utrecht. I spoke
briefly about the notion of using the breadth of psychological evidence to
support medico-legal assessments. I then ran quickly through CSEL’s existing research
studies, outlined our recent studies (on overgeneral memory, and on
credibility judgments about people with PTSD & Depression), and discussed
potential new studies. We then spent some time thinking about different types
of autobiographical memory in different cultures, working from a paper by Markus
& Kitayama (1991), which reviews the robust evidence for differences
between individualist, or independent cultures and collectivist, or
interdependent cultures in terms of how events are described and recalled.
It was great to work and think together with these dedicated
professionals, and to hear about the pressures of policy changes that they have
to contend with. We talked about how these pressures interact with their focus
on ensuring that individuals seeking protection get the best possible decisions
in their cases, taking into account their medical and psychological needs and difficulties.
We had a very fruitful exchange – they were very interested in encouraging our
research – and I do hope that we will find ways to continue this connection.
