Volume 21 Issue 1
Autumn 2010
Doctors for Human Rights www.doctorsforhumanrights.org
Company Number 3792515
Institutional resistance to the right to the highest attainable standard of health within the medical profession
Charity Number 1078420
INSIDE THIS ISSUE:
Institutional resistance - page 1&2 DHR still leads - page 1&2 Chair and BMJ editor - page 2 DHR logo - page 2 DHR campaign ends with WMA’s statement on asylum seekers and illegal immigrants’ s health - pages 3 to 6 inclusive Seventy one papers from DHR executive committee members in twenty years - page 7 AGM 2010 - page 8
In the ten years since publication of General Comment 14, it has become increasingly plain that the medical profession as a whole prefers health rights to be aspirational - as described in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights - rather than the fundamental and legal human right described by Article 12 of the binding International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights ('hard law') as amplified by General Comment 14 ('soft law'). If the US and the UK are, as frequently claimed, two nations divided by a common language, then the worlds of human rights and of medicine are two professions divided by the right to the highest attainable standard of health. They are two ships steaming parallel courses towards a common destination, but using different navigational equipment and different languages, each acting as if the other does not exist. The medical profession with its two millennia track record affects to be unimpressed by the new kids on the block with their fancy notions on health entitlements, while the human rights profession rightly behaves assertively at the same time as feeling undervalued by the medical establishment’s unjustified disdain. Yet, as the first UN Special Rapporteur on the right to the highest attainable standard of health explained to the Human Rights Council in 2007, the right to the highest attainable standard of health is one of the most extensive and complex human rights in the international lexicon, and cannot be realised without health professionals. "However", he added, “to be blunt, most health professionals whom the Special Rapporteur meets have not even heard of the right to health. If they have heard of it, they usually have no idea what it means, either conceptually or operationally. If they have heard of it, they think it is ct'd on page 2 ...
Ditchley Park and terrorism - page 8
DHR still a leader amongst health and human rights organistions Doctors for Human Rights continues in the van of promoting human rights in general and the highest attainable standard of health in particluar, within the medical profession. One justification for the claim is the record of articles published in high impact international medical journals (see page 7) – another is the uncompromising nature of DHR's campaigning, which not infrequently results in some papers being rejected by medical journals, but also gets results. A case in point is the repeated rejection – three times over two and a half years (see page 4-6) - of an editorial that demonstrates it is unethical for doctors to collabourate over the denial of refused asylum seekers health rights, while at the same time demonstrating that the BMA has acted less than straightforwardly by maintaining its Trappist silence over the fact of the violation of refused asylum seekers health rights. When DHR appealed the third rejection - this time on the basis the paper was ‘too strong’ - DHR accused the BMJ of censorhip. The (delayed) response from the BMJ was to say bluntly that the article would not be published. ct'd on page 2 ...
Institutional resistance ct'd form page 1 ...
2
something that will get them into trouble". Thirty four years on from the adoption of the Covenant, and seventeen years on from the World Conference in Vienna that recognised the importance of special education in human rights for health professionals, doctors remain shockingly ignorant of the right to the highest attainable standard of health. As the former Special Rapporteur put it “the right to health will not animate health policies and systems without greater support from health professionals. This is one of our greatest challenges: how to educate more health professionals about the practical utility of human rights.
DHR still a leader amongst health and human rights organistions ct'd form page 1 ...
In the past few weeks the World Medical Association (WMA) website – following the recent World Medical Association General Assembly held in Vancouver, Canada from October 13 to 16 – published the following statement on the health rights of refused asylum seekers and others. MEDICAL CARE FOR REFUGEES National medical associations were urged to support and promote the right of all people to receive medical care on the basis of clinical need alone and to speak out against legislation and practices that are in opposition to this fundamental right. In a statement revising its policy, the WMA said that refugees, including asylum seekers, refused asylum seekers and undocumented migrants, as well as internally displaced persons in all regions were among the most vulnerable in society and international codes of human rights and medical ethics declared that all people were entitled without discrimination to appropriate medical care. Physicians could not be compelled to participate in any punitive or judicial action or to administer any non-medically justified diagnostic treatment such as sedatives to facilitate easy deportation from a country
This means that the BMA, which has long been an influential member of the WMA, is now 'urged' to campaign for refused asylum seekers' full free access to secondary NHS health care on the basis that their right to the highest attainable standard of health is being violated. It can be conjectured that the WMA decision to revise 'its policy' was, at least in part, due to DHR's uncompromisingly severe criticism of the BMA stance of maintaining a complete silence regarding the fact of the violation of refused asylum seekers' health rights, in three letters - two in the BMJ, one in the Lancet (see updated four and a half year record of DHR's campaign on pages 3-6 inclusive). Whether or not the substance of the three rejected BMJ editorial submissions was also passed on surreptitiously to the BMA is an open question - had it been so it would be unethical. I rang the BMA lead on human rights, whom I had criticised for neglecting to mention health rights in his BMJ blog on asylum seekers access to free NHS secondary healthcare, to ask if we should congratulate the BMA for getting the WMA onside. He cautiously admitted that the BMA contributed to the decision. Of course, given that many BMA members do not approve of refused asylum seekers having free access to healthcare, the BMA may want to keep quiet about any influence they might have brought to bear on the WMA, but equally it may they did not try too hard to influence the WMA one way or another.
DHR logo DHR chair to meet BMJ Editor
The chair will meet the BMJ editor, Fiona Godlee, early in the new year. The BMJ has rejected half a dozen or more editorials submissions over a number of years on the basis of questionable reasons - for instance that human rights are of insufficient interest to BMJ readers. The chair
It is fair to say that the DHR logo is not universally admired amongst DHR
allowed several months to pass since
executive committee members, but it has the great advantage of, at a glance,
the last rejection before asking for a
demonstrating some of DHR's most distinctive features - i) its medical provenance
meeting, not least so as to increase
ii) it eclectic view on the importance of all human rights in relation to health and iii)
the chances of the request being accepted.
its prime interest in health rights
3
Advocacy on refused asylum seekers healthcare access timeline 2006-2010 Public Private 2006 16/5/06
May
emailed chair of BMA ethics committee, Michael Wilks, to alert/warn him of the content of draft version of July 2006 BMJ editorial dealing with refused asylum seekers health rights.
Response: no reply 6/6/06
June
re-emailed Michael Wilks as received no acknowledgement of above email.
Response: no reply 14/7/06
14/7/06 BMJ editorial: explained the legal basis of the violation of refused asylum seekers right to the highest attainable standard of health. Hall, P. Failed asylum seekers and health care. BMJ 2006;333:109-10. http:// phall.members.gn.apc.org/FldAsySkHltc.pdf
July
emailed Prof Nathanson and Wilks a copy of embargoed BMJ editorial that explains the legal basis of how denial of access to free NHS care violated their right to the highest attainable standard of health the violation of refused asylum seekers
15/7/06
August
replied to email from Prof Nathanson, to explain in what way the BMJ editorial differed from BMA policy
Response - see below 17/7/06
September
replied to second email from Prof Nathanson, to confirm the legal position stated within the editorial is authentic
Response - no reply
29/7/06
October
November 30/11/06 (DHR submitted letter to the BMJ that waited two weeks to be published on the Rapid Responses BMJ website - only to wait for nearly six months more before it was published in print edition - see 15/5/07)
December
emailed M Wilks pointing out the BMA, as a result of being widely recognised as an authority on human rights and medical ethics, had a responsibility to give clear messages to the medical profession, and asked that the ethics committee rule on the ethics of doctors violating health rights.
21/9/06
very politely emailed Tony Callard, the new chair of BMA medical ethics committee, and requested that the BMA inform doctors they should not cooperate with regulations that violate anyone’s human rights - especially health rights. I apologised in advance for having to subsequently criticise the BMA should they fail to do as I suggest, given that the BMA's silence on the issue had become part of the problem.
Response: no reply
16/11/06
January 2007
February
15/5/07 BMJ letter: finally published in print version after nearly six months procrastination. It criticised the BMA’s silence over the fact of denial of refused asylum seekers health rights, and clarified how the BMA had become part of the problem given that they are considered an unimpeachable authority on human rights. Hall P. Highest attainable standard of health. BMJ. 334:917. http://phall.members.gn.apc.org/AsyRHASHHr.pdf
March April May June
email invitation Dr Callard and the ethics committee to my December presentation on the right to the highest attainable standard of health, - and pointed out the new GMC ‘Good Medical Practice’ commends doctors to protect and promote the health of [patients and] the public ie we have a moral duty of care to people other than those for whom they are contracted to care for.
Response: no reply
4
Advocacy on refused asylum seekers healthcare access timeline 2006-2010 2007
Public 11/8/07 Lancet Comment: entitled ‘Healthcare for refused asylum seekers in the UK’ - a more reflective analysis of the issues and principles. Hall P. Healthcare for refused asylum seekers. The Lancet. 370: 466 - 467. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61212-4. http://phall.members.gn.apc.org/HthcrRefAsySkLt.pdf
15/9/07 BMJ letter: entitled ‘BMA is in denial’ pointed out the disconnect between BMA high profile support for health rights, and institutional resistance to incorporate health rights into BMA policy.
Private
July August September
October
Hall P. BMA is in denial. BMJ 2007; 335: 629. http://phall.members.gn.apc.org/LtrBMADen.pdf
November
December 1/1/08
BMJ editorial: an explanation of why it is unethical for doctors to violate asylum seekers’ health rights - initially accepted.
January 2008 February March
April May
13/6/08
BMJ editorial that had been submitted and accepted in January 2008 - suddenly rejected by three person editors panel despite it having undergone several revisions.
June July 11/9/08
August September
October November December
Email: sent criticised Julian Sheather on the ‘entitlement’ email conference, because he unethically (given he is the human rights lead in the BMA ethics department), used his BMJ weblog to debate the rights and wrongs of asylum seekers accessing free NHS healthcare, without mentioning
22/9/08
email: pointing out to Professor Nathanson semiprivately (tactical email copies to limited number of influential people) that the BMA’s calculated silence over the fact of the denial of refused asylum seekers access to healthcare being a violation of their human rights, resembles nothing so much (given the extent of the BMA’s commanding influence over the UK medical profession’s perceptions of human rights and medical ethics - and the medical profession’s profound ignorance of the right to the highest attainable standard of health), as Mbeki’s obfuscation of the cause of AIDS
5
Advocacy on refused asylum seekers healthcare access timeline 2006-2010 Public Private 2009
January
February March 21/4/09
Previously rejected DHR editorial on refused asylum seekers’ health rights re-submitted to BMJ in enhanced form, but subsequently rejected for a second time
April May
5/6/09
BMJ (collaborative) letter: published in print edition - corrects misleading statements made in recent BMJ editorial that criticised asylum
10/7/09
Lancet letter: that explains how collusion with the denial of refused asylum seekers access to free NHS secondary healthcare amounts to unethical medical practice. Hall P. The responsibilities of the World Medical Association President. Lancet 2009;374: 116. http://phall.members.gn.apc.org/LctLtr.pdf
June July August September October
November December January 2010 February
14/3/10 BMJ editorial- third (revamped) version of previously twice rejected editorial re- submitted 27/4/10 BMJ editorial- third version rejected for third time - this time on the basis it was “too strong”
March April May
23/5/10 Paper submitted on the ‘entitlement’ email conference criticising the misleading use of the word 'treatment' as a blanket term to cover the distinct (though often complementary) outcome components that comprise secondary care - as used in the legislation denying access to healthcare for refused asylum seekers
6
Advocacy on refused asylum seekers healthcare access timeline 2006-2010 Public
2010
25/6/10
Submission to the Department of Health, as part of its public consultation over proposal for rules of access for foreign nationals - including refused asylum seekers - to the NHS.
June July
First paragraph “A fundamental error at the heart of the Charging Regulations is the (mis)use of the term treatment to cover all the secondary healthcare outcomes. Given that treatment in a healthcare context is “the administration or application of remedies to a patient or for a disease or injury; therapy,” its role in secondary healthcare is but the end product of a complicated process that also comprises initial assessment, investigations, and diagnosis. Crucially, it is only once a diagnosis has been achieved, that it is possible to evaluate the urgency of any treatment”
August
September October November
First excerpt “More importantly, in the draft NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE GUIDANCE ON IMPLEMENTING THE OVERSEAS VISITORS HOSPITAL CHARGING REGULATIONS which will be read, diagnosis is
mentioned three times but there is no explanation of the often complicated process required to achieve a diagnosis. While investigation is mentioned seven times, it is, Kafka-esquely, only in the context of determining someone's entitlement or if a criminal act has taken place. The dearth of the terms diagnosis and investigation generates a misapprehension that patients arrive in secondary care with pre-established or obvious diagnoses that are promptly assessable as requiring treatment that is either immediately necessary, urgent, or neither”
December January 2011 February
March
Second excerpt “The importance of explicitly recognising the significance of the indispensable investigative and diagnostic role of secondary care, is that each of the major stake holder groups with regard to the denial of refused asylum seekers access to free NHS care - refused asylum seekers and their advocates, healthcare workers, the government and the electorate - understand there is much more at stake in the medical management of a patient's illness than just treatment. Very often complicated investigations have to be carried out to establish a diagnosis before a treatment urgency hierarchy such as immediately necessary, urgent, or neither - can be applied”. Report as submitted The whole DHR report as submitted, the bulk of which was an entitlement coalition project plus individually amplified aspects as chosen by each member organisation, can be downloaded from http://phall.members.gn.apc.org/RespConsul.pdf
April
May June July August
September
13-16/10/10
The World Medical Association General Assembly held in Vancouver, Canada in October publishes a statement urging National Medical Associations to promote the heath rights of refused asylum seekers and illegal immigrants
October
November
Private
7
A record Listed below are publications written by current and former DHR executive committee members since DHR's inception twenty one years ago. There are over seventy - a massive contribution to the human rights discourse as 1. Kandala P. Human Rights : Release of Sudanese doctors from detention. (News) The Lancet. Volume 335, Issue 8704, 23 June 1990, Page 1519
36. Kandela P. Medical journals and human rights. The Lancet, 352, Pages S7 - S11, 1 October 1998. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(98)90292-6
2. Hall P, Kandela P, Munro I, Pollock I, Zinkin P, Barrett S. Judicial amputation and human rights. (ltr) The Lancet, i Vol. 336 p 572 Sep 01, 1990
37. Hall P et al. False Dawn: Palestinian Health and Human Rights Under Siege in the Peace Process. (Report) London 1998
3. Kandela P. Kashmir: Bloodshed in paradise. (Art) Mar 30, 1991 The Lancet,. Vol. 337 No. 8744 pp 783-78410.
38. Hall P . Cervical screening for women with learning disability (ltr) BMJ Feb 1999; 318: 536
4. Hall P. Physicians for Human Rights (UK) (Editorial) BMJ Dec 1991; 303: 1562 1563: doi:10.1136/bmj.303.6817.1562
39. Kandela P. Clitoridectomy. (Dissecting room) The Lancet, 353 No. 9162 p1453 Apr 24, 1999
5. Hall P, Kandela P, Pollock I. Prison medicine. (ltr) BMJ Mar 1992; 304: 845 - 846; doi:10.1136/bmj.304.6830.845-c
41. Hall P. Medical Neutrality. (Editorial) J R Soc Med, Nov 1999; 92: 553
40. Kandela P. Bagdad: Medical services continue to decline in Iraq (News) The Lancet. Vol 353
May 29, 1999
6. Hall P. P. Kandela, I. Pollock. Prison medicine. (ltr) BMJ Mar 1992; 304: 845 - 846; doi:10.1136/bmj.304.6830.845-c
42. Kandela P. Amman: Jordan's government wrestles with health care and its economy. (News) The Lancet, 354, Issue 9194, 1979, 4 Dec 1999. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(05)76750-7
7. Hall P. HIV transmission and the law. (ltr) The Lancet Vol. 340 No. 8820 p 678 Sep 12, 1992
43. Kandela P. Baghdad 2000—rubbish heaps and cesspits (News) The Lancet, Vol 355, Issue 9218, Page 1893, 27 May 2000. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(05)73341-9
8. Hall P. The death penalty. (ltr) BMJ Sep 1992; 305: 717 - 718; doi:10.1136/bmj. 305.6855.717-c
44. Hall P. The importance of human rights to health. studentBMJ 2004 (Editorial) ; 12:349-392 Oct ISSN 0966-6494
9. Hall P. HIV transmission and the law. (ltr) The Lancet Vol. 340 No. 8820 p 678 Sep 12,
45. Kandela P. Marrakesh: Child prostitution and the spread of AIDS. (News) The Lancet, Volume 356, Issue 9246, Page 1991, 9 December 2000. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(05)72964-0
1992
10. Hall P. The death penalty. (ltr) BMJ Sep 1992; 305: 717 - 718; doi:10.1136/bmj. 305.6855.717-c
46. Hall P. Health and human rights. (ltr) The Lancet, 356 No. 9247 p 2102 Dec 16, 2000 47. Hall P. Health care in the community for people with a learning disability. Unlocking the Future. (chapter) pp36-49. 2000. Kings Fund. London 2000.
11. Hall P. Eligibility for legal aid. (ltr) BMJ Feb 1993; 306: 587 - 588; doi:10.1136/ bmj. 306.6877.587-c
48. Hall P. Doctors urgently need education in human rights. (Health and Human Rights) The Lancet, Vol. 360 No. 9348 p 1879. 2000
12. Kandela P. India: Medicine under siege in Kashmir. (Art) Mar 06, 1993. The Lancet, Vol. 341 No. 8845 p 622
49. Burns-Cox C. Responses to terrorism. Dec 01, 2001. The Lancet, 358 No. 9296 p 1912
13 Hall P. Human rights and doctors in Egypt. (ltr) The Lancet, Vol. 341 No. 8852 p 1085. Apr 24, 1993 . doi:10.1016/0140-6736(93)92436-W
50. Kandela P and 250 others. Health toll of the Middle East crisis. The Lancet, Volume 359, Issue 9320, Pages 1859 - 1860, 25 May 2002. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(02)08702-0
14. Kandela P. Dialogue between health and human rights groups. (Art) Oct 08, 1994 The Lancet, Vol. 344 No. 8928 p 1011
51. Hall P. Doctors and the war on terrorism. (Ed) BMJ Jul 2004; 329: 66; doi:10.1136/bmj. 329.7457.66
52. Bygrave H. BMJ 2004;329:1103 doi:10.1136/bmj.329.7474.1103 (Published 4 Nov 2004)
15. Hall P. Consent for surgery for psychiatric patients. (ltr) BMJ Apr 1993; 306: 930. doi:10.1136/bmj.306.6882.930
53. Hall P. A stain on medical ethics. (ltr) The Lancet, Vol. 366 No. 9493 p 1263 Oct 08, 2005 54. Burns-Cox C. Rouse A, Halpin D et a. Guantanamo: a call for action: Would GMC dismiss a complaint against Guantanamo doctor? BMJ 2006;332:855 doi:10.1136/bmj. 332.7545.855-b
16. Hall P Medicine and UK prisons (ltr) The Lancet, Vol. 342 No. 8862 p 43 July 03, 1993 17. Hall P et al. Seclusion in prison strip cells. (Ed) BMJ Aug 1993; 307: 399 - 400; doi: 10.1136/bmj.307.6901.399
55. Hall P. Failed asylum seekers and health care BMJ (Ed) Jul 2006; 333: 109-110; doi: 10.1136/bmj.333.7559.109
18. Hall P. Doctors duties in war (ltr) The Lancet, Vol. 342 No. 8880 p 1167. Nov 06, 1993
56. Hall P. Torture:the antithesis of ethical medical practice. (chapt)Science to the Service of War: the Responsibility of Scientists p145-156. Daniel Iagolnitzer, Lydie Koch-Miramond et Vincent Rivasseau. L’Harmattan, Paris, 2006
19. Hall P. Asylum seekers in Britain. (ltr) BMJ Jun 1994; 308: 1509
57. Hall P. Health in foreign policy. (ltr) The Lancet, Vol. 369 No. 9556 p 105. Jan 13, 2007
20. Hall P. Reflections on a genocide (Views and reviews) BMJ Sep 1994; 309: 614 - 615
58. Hall P. Reed Elsevier and the arms trade revisited. (ltr) The Lancet, Vol. 369 No. 9566 p 988. Mar 24, 2007
21. Hall P. Medical aspects of human rights abuse in Rwanda. (Chapter) International Health Exchange. 1994
59. Hall P. Highest attainable standard of health is a human right.(ltr)BMJ May 2007;334: 917
22. Hall P. Genocide in Rwanda. (ltr) BMJ Nov 1994; 309: 1305
60. Hall P. Healthcare for refused asylum seekers in the UK. (Comment) The Lancet, Vol. 370 No. 9586 pp 466-467. Aug 11, 2007
23. Hall P, Carney A. et al. Rwanda The Lancet, (ltr) Vol. 345 No. 8945 pp 322-323. Feb 04, 1995
61. Hall P. BMA is in denial. (ltr) BMJ Sep 2007; 335: 629; doi:10.1136/bmj.39346.502141.3A
24. Kandela P. Egypt sees U turn on female circumcision (News) BMJ 1995;310:347-348 (Published 7 January 1995)
62. Burns-Cox C, Halpin D, Frost C, Hall P. Ethical treatment of military detainees. (ltr) The Lancet, Vol. 370 No. 9604 pp 1999-2000. Dec 15, 2007
25. Kandela P. Egyptian doctors' arrest sparks protest (News) BMJ 1995;310:347-348 (Published 11 February 1995)
63. Green C, Khan A, Karmi G, Burns-Cox C, Birnsting M, Halpin D. (ltr) Medical ethical violations in Gaza Dec 22, 2007 The Lancet. Vol. 370 No. 9605 p 2102
26. Burns-Cox C. International congresses held in Israel should be boycotted. (ltr) BMJ 1996;312:57
64. Burns-Cox C. Appeal for Basra Children's Hospital. Jan 05, 2008. The Lancet, Vol. 371 No. 9606 p 28
27. Kandela P. Exposing the abuse of Chinese orphans. (Ed & Deb) BMJ 1996;312:495-496 (Published 24 February 1996)
65. Kandela P and 260 others. Medical justice for undocumented migrants. (ltr) The Lancet, Volume 371, Issue 9608, Page 201, 19 January 2008. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60110-5
28. Kandela P. Amnesty criticises Algerian killings. (News) BMJ 1996;312:532 (Published 2 March 1996)
66. Hall P. The right to health and accountability.(ltr)The Lancet, 372 p 1150. Sep 27, 2008 67. Hall P et al, Access to primary care. (ltr) BMJ 2009;338:b2193, doi: 10.1136/bmj.b2193
29. Hall P. Alleged role of medical personnel in genocide in Rwanda. (ltr) The Lancet Vol. 347 No. 9010 p 1265. May 04, 1996
68. Hall P. Responsibilities of the President of the World Medical Association. (ltr) The Lancet, Vol. 374 No. 9684 p 116. July 11, 2009. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61283-6
30. Kandela P. Effects of sanctions on Iraq's health professionals. (Art) Apr 19, 1997 The Lancet, Vol. 349 No. 9059 p 1153
69. Hall P. Health and human rights education: time to act. (ltr) The Lancet, Vol 375. p 894. March 13, 2010. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60388-1
31. Kandela P. Iraq measures the health effects of sanctions. (Art) June 28, 1997. The Lancet, Vol. 349 No. 9069 p 1896
70. Hall P. The right to the highest attainable standard of health. European Journal of Palliative Care. 2010. Vol 17. No 5. p224-226
32. Kandela P. Court ruling means that Egypt embraces female circumcision again. (News). The Lancet, Volume 350, Issue 9070, Page 41, 5 July 1997. doi:10.1016/ S0140-6736(05)66259-9
71. Hall P. Moral algorithm versus human rights law; philosophy versus ethos. (Ltr) The Lancet. Dec 2010
33. Kandela P. Human rights give way to civil rights in Argentina The Lancet, Volume 350, Issue 9086, Page 1231, 25 October 1997 doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(05)63468-X 34. Hall P, Giel R. Palestinian healthcare (ltr) The Lancet, Vol. 351 No. 9102 pp 603-604 Feb 21, 1998 35. Kandela P. Istanbul Careful smiles around the Blue Mosque in Turkey. The Lancet, Volume 352, Issue 9133, Page 1043, 26 September 1998. doi:10.1016/ S0140-6736(05)60090-6
7
Of 71 articles, 64 were published in either the BMJ or Lancet, seven were editorials (four in the BMJ, one in student BMJ, one a Comment in the Lancet, another in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine). The largest number were correspondence, and a couple were book chapters.
The election of DHR committee members
8
This year DHR continues the election cycle as described in the Newsletter prior to the 2000 AGM. This year the executive committee officers will be elected Members can vote in the Members’ Ballot by attending the AGM and voting, or by postal vote, arriving at 91 Harlech Rd, Abbots Langley WD5 OBE not later than three days prior to the AGM.
AGM 2010 Saturday 8th January 2011 2.30 pm at the 3, Merrow Dene 76 Epsom Rd, Guildford GU1 2BX
Nominees names must arrive not later than three days prior to the AGM to include: a. written notice of a members nomination signed by one other member of DHR b. a written agreement to serve in such office if appointed signed by the nominated member elected
Ditchley Park In June 2010 the DHR chair spent a weekend enjoying the hospitality of Ditchley Park at the invitation of Colin Murray Parkes. Colin Murray Parkes OBE is a retired psychiatrist who specialised in bereavement, and wrote numerous books and publications on grief. He is a long standing member of DHR, since he and the chair met in the 1990s, after he had been invited by UNICEF to act as consultant in setting up the Trauma Recovery Programme in Rwanda Later he helped to set up a programme of support to assist families from the UK who were flown out following the 9/11 terrorist attacks in New York. In April 2005 Colin was sent by Help the Hospices to India to assess the psychological needs of people bereaved by the tsunami.
Ditchley Park was built in 1722 and was sometimes used by Winston Churchill for weekend international conferences during the Second World
Over the previous 12 months Colin has been busily persuading a number of potential authors (mostly psychiatrists) to meet to see if they had enough materital to write a book on how to prevent and manage terrorism. The DHR chair was recruited for his experience of genocide and terrorism. "The Ditchley Foundation was established by Sir David Wills in 1958 to advance international learning and to bring transatlantic and other experts together to discuss international issues. Sir David’s original objective was to promote Anglo-American understanding. Since then Ditchley conferences have broadened to include the concerns and participation of nations all over the globe. Ditchley’s unique quality is derived from the beauty and relaxed atmosphere of one of southern England’s finest country houses, and from the warmth and informality of its gatherings. A complex world needs fresh ideas flowing from open minds: this is Ditchley’s hallmark." In this way eight medics came to be brainstorming the issues around a conference table in this wonderful historic place, which made everyone feel immensely valued in a way that was conducive to creative new thinking. In between the work the eight were dined and wined sumptuously, and walked the extensive grounds. The weekend was paid for by the Clemens Nathan Research Centre, an organisation dedicated to the promotion of international human rights founded in 1946 by the Nobel Prize Laureate René Cassin (the author of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights). Clemens chaired the meeting and contributed to the discussion. He can be seen at the head of table in the white shirt. Colin is to his right in the pink shirt, next to the DHR chair. The conclusion of the meeting was that a decision as to whether or not to go ahead would await an evaluation of the recorded minutes. In late August it was decided that modifications were needed to the initial plan. After a new outline was concocted by the editors Hugh Freeman (on Clemens' immediate left) and Colin, it was agreed that there now existed the makings of a very worthwhile volume. The next step was to submit plans to a publisher ...