Asylum policies: part of the solution or part of the problem?

Politicas de asilo: parte de la solucion o parte del problema

The 1951 Geneva Convention aimed at offering victims of human rights violations shelter from their persecutors and the chance to rebuild their lives in safer surroundings. Nothing could be more at odds with the intentions of the Convention than for countries implementing it to subject asylum seekers and refugees to further erosion of their human rights. Yet because of the vulnerable legal status of exiles and the (intended or unintended) consequences of current asylum policies, this is precisely what in many cases, occurs. For many asylum seekers, arrival in the host country marks not the end of their hardships, but the beginning of a new instalment. In this presentation I will focus on the threat to health and well-being which asylum policies and procedures pose.

In the first place, host countries erode the rights of refugees and asylum-seekers if they fail to provide them with adequate health care. This means not simply the right to care, but also effective access to it. Moreover, health care should be culturally appropriate and should recognise the special needs of recipients. It should look beyond standardised Western methods of assessment and treatment and take into account the broader context.

Secondly, host countries must recognise the threat to (mental) health inherent in the procedures which asylum seekers and refugees have to undergo. Of course, nobody seeks to blame host countries for the fact that forced migration of itself is a shattering experience. Nor is it realistic to suppose that the necessary legal procedures can be other than stressful for those whose lives and happiness depends on their outcome. In recent years, however, strong concerns have arisen about the inhumanity of the procedures to which asylum seekers and refugees are subjected and the unnecessary stress that may be caused. In their anxiety to avoid being seen as a 'soft touch', governments may condone practices and procedures which amount to a fundamental subversion of the aims of the 1951 Convention and other internationally binding agreements on human rights.

What is the role of health workers in this situation? As well as working for adequate health care provision, it is clearly part of their professional duty to speak out against the further erosion of the rights of asylum seekers and refugees and to become involved in advocacy on their behalf.

David Ingleby (1942) has carried out research on environmental factors in health and illness for the Medical Research Council in London and taught psychology at Cambridge University. In 1982 he moved to The Netherlands to take up a chair in Developmental Psychology at Utrecht University. Since 1990 he has concentrated on cross-cultural issues and the "interculturalisation" of social and health care. In 1999 he became The Netherlands' first professor of Intercultural Psychology. Together with Charles Watters of the University of Kent (England) and Marianne Freyne-Lindhagen of Örebro University (Sweden), he is involved in the development of a Europe-wide network for postgraduate teaching on mental health, social care and migration.