They say conflicting views given in court a natural result of an inexact science
By Kimberly Spykerman 19 October 2009
Psychiatrists in private practice have taken issue with allegations that they are simply ‘hired guns’ for defence lawyers, as Principal Senior State Counsel Bala Reddy described them at a recent conference.
Mr. Reddy said there had been no fewer than 10 instances over the last six months in which the prosecution challenged the findings of private psychiatrists in court hearings. There was none over the same period last year.
He also suggested that defence lawyers turn to psychiatrists from the Institute of Mental Health (IMH) as the hospital was known to be both ‘objective and impartial’.
But psychiatrists told The Straits Times that it is inevitable that members of their profession have different opinions as psychiatry is not an exact science.
Those in private practice say they are hardly ‘hired guns’ and are subject to the same level of scrutiny as those at IMH.
Dr Ang Yong Guan, a former psychiatrist for the Singapore Armed Forces who is now running his own clinic, said: ‘The quality of the psychiatrist should be measured by how objective and how thorough he is.’
Last year, he penned a 34-page report on Australian journalist Peter Lloyd, who was jailed for drug offences, after extensive interviews with Lloyd, his family, friends and colleagues.
He even had the journalist warded and videotaped him to observe his behaviour. He then had him assessed by an IMH psychiatrist, whose findings matched his.
The time private psychiatrists spend assessing their patients is one reason why lawyers turn to them instead of IMH psychiatrists.
Lawyers such as Mr. Amolat Singh said IMH psychiatrists may not have as much time to spend on a patient because of their heavy caseloads.
And in some cases, said lawyer Sunil Sudheesan, IMH reports take months to produce, compared with those from private psychiatrists, which can be ready within weeks, or even days.
But Dr Stephen Phang, a senior consultant at IMH, said it usually takes up to three weeks to prepare a report. He said it takes longer only if the case is complicated and there is a need for extensive clinical interviews and other medical procedures such as CT scans.
Private psychiatrists such as Dr Ang and Dr R. Nagulendran also say they are all too aware that offenders may feign conditions for the sake of getting lighter sentences.
But Dr Ang said ‘good training, experience and clinical wisdom’ help them weed out offenders who try to trick psychiatrists.
Dr Nagulendran, a former IMH psychiatrist who has been in private practice since 1981, said: ‘We don’t go in for the sake of being defence psychiatrists. We go in to assess whether there really is a problem.’
The psychiatrist, who examined child murderer Took Leng How in the Huang Na case and Kallang body-parts killer Leong Siew Chor, said he has no qualms telling lawyers if he finds nothing wrong with the offender.
Fellow psychiatrist Calvin Fones said Mr. Reddy’s suggestion to send all offenders to IMH is impractical. ‘There are inadequate resources to meet such a need. Moreover, the sub-speciality expertise and experience required for some cases may be better found in other hospitals,’ he said.
But Mr. Reddy points out that it will not do the reputation of forensic psychiatrists any good if their conclusions are constantly challenged.
He said in the paper which he presented at a forensics conference here earlier this month: ‘Perhaps this paper will serve as a wake-up call for forensic psychiatrists to... perhaps consider introducing ethical guidelines to help them navigate the potential pitfalls when it comes to providing expert testimony in criminal trials.’
2 comments:
Hired guns? Not us, say private psychiatrists
They say conflicting views given in court a natural result of an inexact science
By Kimberly Spykerman
19 October 2009
Psychiatrists in private practice have taken issue with allegations that they are simply ‘hired guns’ for defence lawyers, as Principal Senior State Counsel Bala Reddy described them at a recent conference.
Mr. Reddy said there had been no fewer than 10 instances over the last six months in which the prosecution challenged the findings of private psychiatrists in court hearings. There was none over the same period last year.
He also suggested that defence lawyers turn to psychiatrists from the Institute of Mental Health (IMH) as the hospital was known to be both ‘objective and impartial’.
But psychiatrists told The Straits Times that it is inevitable that members of their profession have different opinions as psychiatry is not an exact science.
Those in private practice say they are hardly ‘hired guns’ and are subject to the same level of scrutiny as those at IMH.
Dr Ang Yong Guan, a former psychiatrist for the Singapore Armed Forces who is now running his own clinic, said: ‘The quality of the psychiatrist should be measured by how objective and how thorough he is.’
Last year, he penned a 34-page report on Australian journalist Peter Lloyd, who was jailed for drug offences, after extensive interviews with Lloyd, his family, friends and colleagues.
He even had the journalist warded and videotaped him to observe his behaviour. He then had him assessed by an IMH psychiatrist, whose findings matched his.
The time private psychiatrists spend assessing their patients is one reason why lawyers turn to them instead of IMH psychiatrists.
Lawyers such as Mr. Amolat Singh said IMH psychiatrists may not have as much time to spend on a patient because of their heavy caseloads.
And in some cases, said lawyer Sunil Sudheesan, IMH reports take months to produce, compared with those from private psychiatrists, which can be ready within weeks, or even days.
But Dr Stephen Phang, a senior consultant at IMH, said it usually takes up to three weeks to prepare a report. He said it takes longer only if the case is complicated and there is a need for extensive clinical interviews and other medical procedures such as CT scans.
Private psychiatrists such as Dr Ang and Dr R. Nagulendran also say they are all too aware that offenders may feign conditions for the sake of getting lighter sentences.
But Dr Ang said ‘good training, experience and clinical wisdom’ help them weed out offenders who try to trick psychiatrists.
Dr Nagulendran, a former IMH psychiatrist who has been in private practice since 1981, said: ‘We don’t go in for the sake of being defence psychiatrists. We go in to assess whether there really is a problem.’
The psychiatrist, who examined child murderer Took Leng How in the Huang Na case and Kallang body-parts killer Leong Siew Chor, said he has no qualms telling lawyers if he finds nothing wrong with the offender.
Fellow psychiatrist Calvin Fones said Mr. Reddy’s suggestion to send all offenders to IMH is impractical. ‘There are inadequate resources to meet such a need. Moreover, the sub-speciality expertise and experience required for some cases may be better found in other hospitals,’ he said.
But Mr. Reddy points out that it will not do the reputation of forensic psychiatrists any good if their conclusions are constantly challenged.
He said in the paper which he presented at a forensics conference here earlier this month: ‘Perhaps this paper will serve as a wake-up call for forensic psychiatrists to... perhaps consider introducing ethical guidelines to help them navigate the potential pitfalls when it comes to providing expert testimony in criminal trials.’
Patient diagnosed with brain hernia
Post a Comment