‘Pre-crime’,<i>Prevent,</i>and practices of exceptionalism: Psychotherapy and the new norm in the NHS

Rizq, Rosemary

doi:10.1080/14753634.2017.1365005

Cited by 12 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The development of the multi agency CHANEL panels with their direct link to security services are a device to embed securitisation in the execution of otherwise (potentially) liberatory actions of public servants. O'Donnell (2015, 2017) describes these challenges from an educational perspective noting how PREVENT serves to impact on students willingness to express their ideas and perspectives for fear of being deemed 'extreme' while Rizq (2017) explores how PREVENT operates a form of exceptionalism that breeches the confidentiality of the psychotheraputic 'space'. McKendrick & Finch (2016) further consider how PREVENT impacts on the ability to form meaningful and trusting relationships with people who use social work services when the spectre of coercive power is used as a proxy by PREVENT.…”

Section: Discussion -Ethical Issues For Social Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social work and countering violent extremism in Sweden and the UK

Finch

Jönsson

Kamali³

et al. 2019

European Journal of Social Work

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social Work in Europe, is now being tasked with managing the "problems" of terrorism, i.e supporting those affected by terrorist attacks, managing returnees affiliated with Terrorist groups in the Middle East, or, as will be discussed here, identifying those at risk from radicalisation and extremism. Both Britain and Sweden have Counter-Terrorism policies, but recent developments in both countries, have made it a statutory requirement for social workers, to work within such policies. This paper seeks to explore the policies in both countries utilising a comparative approach, to consider the similarities in not only policy and practice, but also in the ethical consequences such policies pose for social workers across Europe. The exploration considers; the extent to which anti-radicalisation policies influence social work practices in Sweden and the UK and how they might undermine social work as a human rights profession. The results indicate that anti-radicalisation policies run the risk of reducing social work to become a 'policing profession' practicing social control. This has substantial consequences for social work and its global ethics, which should be considered and struggled against by social workers committed to principles of social justice and human rights.

show abstract

Section: Discussion -Ethical Issues For Social Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social work and countering violent extremism in Sweden and the UK

Finch

Jönsson

Kamali³

et al. 2019

European Journal of Social Work

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…What do healthcare staff look out for when assessing for vulnerabilities towards radicalisation? How do PREVENT referrals impact the therapeutic alliance (Rizq 2017)? Fourth, our results indicate the importance of ascertaining staff experiences of perceived racist policies in the NHS, beyond racial hostility (Fernando 2017).…”

Section: Prospective Research and Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Keeping Our Mouths Shut: The Fear and Racialized Self-Censorship of British Healthcare Professionals in PREVENT Training

Younis

Jadhav

2019

Cult Med Psychiatry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The PREVENT policy introduced a duty for British health professionals to identify and report patients they suspect may be vulnerable towards radicalisation. Research on PREVENT's impact in healthcare is scant, especially on the lived experiences of staff. This study examined individual interviews with 16 critical National Health Service (NHS) professionals who participated in mandatory PREVENT counter-radicalisation training, half of whom are Muslims. Results reveal two themes underlying the self-censorship healthcare staff. The first theme is fear, which critical NHS staff experienced as a result of the political and moral subscript underlying PREVENT training: the 'good' position is to accept the PREVENT duty, and the 'bad' position is to reject it. This fear is experienced more acutely by British Muslim healthcare staff. The second theme relates to the structures which extend beyond PREVENT but nonetheless contribute to self-censorship: distrustful settings in which the gaze of unknown colleagues stifles personal expression; reluctant trainers who admit PREVENT may be unethical but nonetheless relinquish responsibility from the act of training; and socio-political conditions affecting the NHS which overwhelm staff with other concerns. This paper argues that counterterrorism within healthcare settings may reveal racist structures which disproportionality impact British Muslims, and raises questions regarding freedom of conscience.

show abstract

“…(Summerfield 2016) Dr Rosemary Rizq has similar concerns about the conflation of health care and protection with the reporting of terrorist deviance. She argues that surveillance and control insidiously invade the consulting room through the Prevent Duty, turning the patient requiring health care into an already-securitised risk, and forbidding the free play of speech so essential for therapy (Rizq 2017).…”

Section: Prevent In the Nhs: Academic Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The banality of counterterrorism “after, after 9/11”? Perspectives on the Prevent duty from the UK health care sector

Heath-Kelly

Strausz

2018

Critical Studies on Terrorism

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since 2015, the UK healthcare sector sector has (along with education and social care) been responsibilised for noticing signs of radicalisation and reporting patients to the Prevent programme. The Prevent Duty frames the integration of healthcare professionals into the UK's counterterrorism effort as the banal extension of safeguarding. But safeguarding has previously been framed as the protection of children, and adults with care and support needs, from abuse. This article explores the legitimacy of situating Prevent within safeguarding through interviews with safeguarding experts in six National Health Service (NHS) Trusts and Clinical Commissioning Groups. It also describes the factors which NHS staff identified as indicators of radicalisationdata which was obtained from an online questionnaire completed by 329 health care professionals. The article argues that the "after, after 9/11" era is not radically distinct from earlier periods of counterterrorism but does contain novel features, such as the performance of anticipatory counterterrorism under the rubric of welfare and care.

show abstract

‘Pre-crime’,Prevent,and practices of exceptionalism: Psychotherapy and the new norm in the NHS

Cited by 12 publications

References 33 publications

Social work and countering violent extremism in Sweden and the UK

Social work and countering violent extremism in Sweden and the UK

Keeping Our Mouths Shut: The Fear and Racialized Self-Censorship of British Healthcare Professionals in PREVENT Training

The banality of counterterrorism “after, after 9/11”? Perspectives on the Prevent duty from the UK health care sector

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About