missing and disappeared: the challenge of including injured survivors in casualty counts
DESCRIPTION
Missing and disappeared: the challenge of including injured survivors in casualty counts. . Marie Breen-Smyth University of Surrey . The study was commissioned by WAVE and funded by the OFMDFM via the Community Relations Council, but the views in this paper are those of the author alone. . - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
www.surrey.ac.uk/politics/cii
Missing and disappeared: the challenge of including injured survivors in casualty counts.
Marie Breen-SmythUniversity of Surrey
The study was commissioned by WAVE and funded by the OFMDFM via the Community Relations Council, but the views in this paper are those of the author alone.
www.surrey.ac.uk/politics/cii
• General problems of counting the casualties of armed conflict• Specific difficulties with MIAs or ‘disappeared’ casualties• Injury as another form of missing-ness and disappearance • Summary of 2011-2012 study of seriously physically injured in
Northern Ireland • Key issues in addressing the needs of such casualties • Key challenges in including injured people in casualty counts • Implications for peace and reconciliation
OUTLINE
www.surrey.ac.uk/politics/cii
General problems of counting the casualties of armed conflict
• Capacity in war zones• No standard methods• What data to collect: name, age, gender, cause of
death but what else?• Issues about inclusivity • Reliability and validity & verification issues
www.surrey.ac.uk/politics/cii
Specific difficulties with MIAs or ‘disappeared’ casualties
• Definitional difficulties• Lack of good comprehensive data from consistent
reliable source• Condition of casualties/ missing changes over time,
aging and deteriorating health means needs tend to increase over time
• Focus on physical needs to exclusion of psychological needs
• Aging population lends urgency to need to make provision, some are dead already.
www.surrey.ac.uk/politics/cii
CVSNI Summary of Previous Research
Survey/Research Year Findings Sample Size
Survey extrapolated to
current population*
Cost of the Troubles Study (COTTS)
2002 25.5% -severe or very severe experience
36% -severe or very severe
impact
1,346
1,346
456,169
644,004
Who are the Victims: Cairns and Mallet (NISRA 2003)
2003 16% consider themselves direct victims 30% considered themselves indirect victims
1,000
1,000
286,224
536,670
The Legacy of the Troubles: Muldoon, O et al
2005 30% of the sample had direct experience of the troubles
3,000 536,670
CVSNI Omnibus Survey (NISRA)
2010 30% of survey had been directly affected by the conflict
1,179 536,670
www.surrey.ac.uk/politics/cii
Injury as another form of missing-ness and disappearance
• Seriously injured and disabled often missing from casualty counts
• They quickly disappear (or never appear) in public accounts
• Counting only fatal casualties under-represents the damage caused by armed conflict
• Ignores ongoing costs (health, social, economic, psychological) absorbed (or ignored) by families, health care systems, social security etc
• Normalises armed conflict: injured ‘disappear’ in time.
www.surrey.ac.uk/politics/cii
Multiple conflict related deaths
Single conflict related death Multiple conflict related injuries
Single conflict related injury
Multiple accidental deaths
Single accidental death/ everyday tragedy
PREVALENCE
HIERARCHIES OF ATTENTION
CONFLICT
PEACE
www.surrey.ac.uk/politics/cii
Summary of study • Difficulty in definition of cohort:
• Physical? • Psychological? • Recovered? • Disabled?
• Focused on “life-threatening severe and/or disfiguring physical injury”
• All participants have physical injuries• Psychological injury included alongside physical • Study of the needs of ‘people severely injured or disfigured by the
conflict in Northern Ireland and their carers’
www.surrey.ac.uk/politics/cii
Summary(full report available at
http://www.surrey.ac.uk/politics/cii/Projects/ )
• aimed to define injury • audit total numbers of casualties, • range of injuries • examine their needs and available services
www.surrey.ac.uk/politics/cii
• Review of literature • 50 in depth Interviews• Survey of injured people
– Self completion – simple, short format– Focus on measuring needs and priorities– Focussed on injured rather than carers– Embed PDS measure
• 60 minute film with Northern Visions
www.surrey.ac.uk/politics/cii
Key findings
www.surrey.ac.uk/politics/cii
• Injured civilians versus injured security services personnel – security personnel better provided for than civilians, resistance to seeing this amongst former
• Variation of benefits advice standards – especially re: new DLA rules and cuts [Wave have good provision]
• Counselling & psychological services – trauma focussed help not widely available, waiting lists – not awareness / access among injured of PTSD and trauma counselling
www.surrey.ac.uk/politics/cii
Justice: In rural areas and for some in Belfast have to deal with knowing about perpetrators in their community/locality – most don’t want ‘revenge’.
For most, justice not a pressing concern – exceptions possibly victims of security forces / collusion
Being badly advised about compensation – Bloomfield [derisory amounts] pre 2002 – post 2002 still there are problems, delays, perceived inequities etc
Impact of injury on family and carer
Current activities
www.surrey.ac.uk/politics/cii
Inequities in compensation, disqualification from benefits, so all now benefit dependent
Lack of (or reduced) occupational pension provision (except security forces)
Service providers – new funding criteria –
Inadequate or inappropriate psychiatric service for injured and survivors in NI. Voluntary/NGO provision versus NHS
www.surrey.ac.uk/politics/cii
Key issues in addressing the needs of injured casualties
www.surrey.ac.uk/politics/cii
Segregation of services sectarian
security-civilian;
DPOA, SEFF, Phoenix PRRT –v- the rest;
Disability –v- victims
Disability Action, Carers Assoc –v- victims & survivors groups
SEFFFAIRetc
CUNAMHRFJetc
WAVEetc
www.surrey.ac.uk/politics/cii
Key challenges in including injured people in casualty counts
• Developing and agreeing operational definitions of ‘injury’ • Basing these on humanitarian rather than political principles• Designing and agreeing methodologies and protocols across
contexts and agents• Overcoming the short term sensational focus of reporting on armed
conflict • Designing methods that address the longitudinal nature of injury
counts, by updates over time, addressing longevity –v- life expectancy
• Countering government objections based on financial reluctance to meet the costs of properly addressing injury
www.surrey.ac.uk/politics/cii
Implications for peace and reconciliation• Continuing segregation and division;• No mechanism for putting the past behind• Living next door to the perpetrator – especially rural
visibility• People trapped in fear and past trauma• Disparities in provision for civilians and former security
forces• Left to individuals to cope: failure to establish any
measures in peace process to address these issues• Risks of revenge
www.surrey.ac.uk/politics/cii
Implications for peace and reconciliation• Some injured people are political agents, they and their
carers and families continue to live and speak and act politically
• Post conflict reconciliation must be grounded in truth and focused on rights of victims and efforts to discover the circumstances of their death or injury.
• Attempts to reduce the incidence and impact of armed violence must make genuine efforts to monitor and understand ALL the human consequences, including injury.