Healthcare and complicity in Australian immigration detention

Resistance and the delivery of healthcare in Australian immigration detention centres

There are few issues that have been as vexing for the Australian healthcare community as the Australian governments policy of mandatory, indefinite, immigration detention. While many concepts have been used to begin to describe the many dilemmas faced by healthcare professionals and their resolution, they are limited, perhaps most fundamentally by the fact that immigration detention is antithetical to health and wellbeing. Furthermore, and while most advice recognises that the abolition of detention is the only option in overcoming these issues, it provides little guidance on how action within detention could contribute to this. Drawing on the work of political theorists and the broader sociological literature, we will introduce and apply a form of action that has not yet been considered for healthcare workers within detention, resistance. We will draw on several examples from the literature to show how everyday resistance could be enacted in healthcare and immigration detention settings. We argue that the concept of resistance has several conceptual and practical advantages over much existing guidance for healthcare workers in these environments, namely that it politicises care and has synergies with other efforts aimed at the abolition of detention. We also offer some reflections on the justifiability of such action, arguing that it is largely consistent with the existing guidance produced by all major healthcare bodies in Australia.

Psychological Distress in Australian Onshore and Offshore Immigration Detention Centres from 2014-2018

This study examines the impact of length of detention and location of detention on psychological distress amongst Australian immigration detainees. This study employs a repeated measures cross-sectional study, utilising Australian government data from 2014 to 2018 that relied on the Kessler-10 (K10) to measure psychological distress. There were 21,703 assessments conducted which included 15,264 assessment onshore over a 5 year period and 6439 assessments offshore over a 3 year period. The mean overall K10 score onshore was 18.85, while offshore it was 24.37. K10 scores increased with length of time detained both onshore and offshore, with K10 scores offshore generally higher at each time point. The results of this study add to a growing body of evidence that suggests that length of time detained and particularly offshore detention has a substantial impact on mental health.

Mental health consequences of detaining children and families who seek asylum: a scoping review

Almost 80 million people globally are forcibly displaced. A small number reach wealthy western countries and seek asylum. Over half are children. Wealthy reception countries have increasingly adopted restrictive reception practices including immigration detention. There is an expanding literature on the mental health impacts of immigration detention for adults, but less about children. This scoping review identified 22 studies of children detained by 6 countries (Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, Netherlands, the UK and the US) through searches of Medline, PsychINFO, Emcare, CINAHL and Scopus data bases for the period January 1992-May 2019. The results are presented thematically. There is quantitative data about the mental health of children and parents who are detained and qualitative evidence includes the words and drawings of detained children. The papers are predominantly small cross-sectional studies using mixed methodologies with convenience samples. Despite weaknesses in individual studies the review provides a rich and consistent picture of the experience and impact of immigration detention on children's wellbeing, parental mental health and parenting. Displaced children are exposed to peri-migration trauma and loss compounded by further adversity while held detained. There are high rates of distress, mental disorder, physical health and developmental problems in children aged from infancy to adolescence which persist after resettlement. Restrictive detention is a particularly adverse reception experience and children and parents should not be detained or separated for immigration purposes. The findings have implications for policy and practice. Clinicians and researchers have a role in advocacy for reception polices that support the wellbeing of accompanied and unaccompanied children who seek asylum.

Medical advocacy in the face of Australian immigration practices: A study of medical professionals defending the health rights of detained refugees and asylum seekers

While medical advocacy is mandated as a core professional commitment in a growing number of ethical codes and medical training programs, medical advocacy and social justice engagement are regularly subordinated to traditional clinical responsibilities. This study aims to provide insight into factors that motivate clinician engagement and perseverance with medical advocacy, so as to inform attempts by policymakers, leaders and educators to promote advocacy practices in medicine. Furthermore, this study aims to provide an analysis of the role of medical advocates in systems where patients' rights are perceived to be infringed and consider how we might best support and protect these medical advocates as a profession, by exploring the experiences and perspectives of Australian clinicians defending the health of detained asylum seekers. In this qualitative study thirty-two medical and health professionals advocating on asylum seeker health in immigration detention were interviewed. Transcripts were coded both inductively and deductively from interview question domains and thematically analysed. Findings suggested that respondents' motivations for advocacy stemmed from deeply intertwined professional and personal ethics. Overall, advocacy responses originated from the union of three integral stimuli: personal ethics, proximity and readiness. We conclude that each of these three integral factors must be addressed in any attempt to foster advocacy within the medical profession. In light of current global trends of increasingly protectionist immigration practices, promoting effective physician advocacy may become essential in ensuring patients' universal right to health.

Do codes of ethics and position statements help guide ethical decision making in Australian immigration detention centres?

Australian immigration detention has been called state sanctioned abuse and a crime against humanity. The Australian healthcare community has been closely involved with these policies, calling for their reform and working within detention centres to provide healthcare. As well as having a devastating impact on health, immigration detention changes the scope and nature of healthcare, with its delivery described as a Sisyphean task. In this article I will explore the guidance that is available to clinicians who work within detention centres and argue that codes, guidelines and positions statements provide little help in relation to ethical decision making. First I will outline guidance that can be found in codes of ethics and position statements, focusing on particularly relevant principles, such as advocacy, clinical independence and the clinicians' relationship to human rights. I will then highlight the disparity between this guidance and the delivery of healthcare within detention by drawing on the testimony of clinicians who formerly worked in these environments. While this disparity should be cause for alarm and at a minimum call into question how codes and positions statements are being used (if at all), there are more fundamental reasons why codes and position statements fail to provide guidance in these circumstances. I will outline a more general criticism of codes of ethics and use this to suggest a way forward, including looking beyond codes and position statements to guide action within Australian immigration detention.

Should clinicians boycott Australian immigration detention?

Australian immigration detention has been called state sanctioned abuse, cruel and degrading and likened to torture. Clinicians have long worked both within the system providing healthcare and outside of it advocating for broader social and political change. It has now been over 25 years and little, if anything, has changed. The government has continued to consolidate power to enforce these policies and has continued to attempt to silence dissent. It was in this context that a boycott was raised as a possible course of action. Despite discussions among the healthcare community about the merits of such action, a number of questions have been overlooked. In this article, I will examine whether a boycott is both ethical and feasible. Taking into account the costs and benefits of current engagement and the potential impact of a boycott, more specifically the potential it has to further harm those detained, I conclude that under current circumstance a boycott cannot be justified. This however does not mean that a boycott should be dismissed completely or that the status quo should be accepted. I discuss potential ways forward for those seeking change.