Letter: Psychiatry in court
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.DR Leopold Field (letter, 20 March) goes too far in dismissing the validity of legal claims for compensation for psychiatric conditions.
Dr Field suggests that many unwarranted claims are pursued, often at public expense, because it is "virtually impossible for someone to be interviewed by a psychiatrist and leave the consulting room without having some psychiatric label attached to them." If this is true, it is not indictment of the principle that psychiatric injury should be a compensable loss, but just a condemnation of the practices of some psychiatrists.
The law has only quite recently in its history begun in civil and criminal cases to recognise the clinical evidence of mental injury. Post traumatic stress disorders and the crime of assault occasioning psychiatric injury are cases in point. It is surely an insult to the many genuinely injured victims recognised by the courts to suggest their suffering is bogus.
The courts must evaluate the evidence in each case, and, following a recent House of Lords decision (Bolitho v City and Hackney [1997] 2 A11 ER 771), their task has been simplified. The case concerned an allegation of medical negligence, but the decision has wider implications for the status of medical evidence.
The Lords ruled that courts are now not bound to accept medical analysis held by a reasonable body of practitioners but are able to subject the evidence to a further test of reasonableness and logicality. Hence, and perhaps very contentiously, psychiatric evidence will no longer be regarded as unimpeachable by virtue of it being substantiated solely by psychiatrists.
Dr GARY SLAPPER
Director of the Law Programme
The Open University
Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments