Maglen Krista
Department of History, Santa Clara University.
Monash Bioeth Rev. 2007 Oct;26(4):47-66. doi: 10.1007/BF03351292.
This article examines some of the key debates and interactions between the Australian government and medical profession in relation to the mental health consequences of the policy of mandatory detention of asylum seekers. It explores how, in a series of episodes between 2001 and 2005, each side claimed to represent accurately the 'true' nature of the detention system through asserting superior 'objectivity' and commitment to 'scientific truth' in their representations of the mental health of asylum seekers. Placing these debates within the particular political objectives of the Liberal Party during John Howard's term as Prime Minister, the article explores how science and medical advocacy have been characterized and made to signify larger conflicts within the Australian political arena. It shows how populist political ideas of 'elitism' have been used by the government to represent as 'elitist untruths' psychiatric research which has demonstrated a direct causal links between government border control policies and mental ill-health.
本文探讨了澳大利亚政府与医学界之间就寻求庇护者强制拘留政策对心理健康造成的影响所展开的一些关键辩论和互动。文章探究了在2001年至2005年期间的一系列事件中,双方如何通过在描述寻求庇护者心理健康状况时宣称具有更高的“客观性”和对“科学真相”的执着,来声称自己准确代表了拘留制度的“真实”本质。将这些辩论置于约翰·霍华德担任总理期间自由党的特定政治目标背景下,本文探讨了科学和医学倡导如何被定性,并被用来象征澳大利亚政治舞台上更大的冲突。文章展示了政府如何利用“精英主义”这种民粹主义政治观念,将已证明政府边境管制政策与心理健康不良之间存在直接因果关系的精神病学研究描述为“精英主义的不实之词”。