Saturday, September 14, 2019

Vicarious Trauma: Avoidance And/Or Acceptance?

A recent decision is circulating (R. v. Marratt, 2019 ONCJ 618), acknowledging the impact of trauma on justice system participants. As a result of that recognition, a choice was made in that case not to file images of child pornography that could simply be verbally described instead. All participants agreed to this procedure to spare court staff and other justice system participants from being needlessly exposed to such traumatic material.

I don't comment on criminal justice system procedures here, but I will say that I was very encouraged to see a judge sensitively acknowledge the impact that trauma can have on justice system participants, including court staff, judges, and lawyers.

That having been said, I always worry a bit about these kinds of acknowledgments because I fear that an over-simplistic-recognition of the impact of "exposure" to trauma can reinforce the culture of silence that I've experienced and observed. It can become too easy to draw a self-protective line and say "no more unnecessary exposure to trauma" in a way that can silence those who have no choice but to endure the consequences of that exposure (because they've lived it). Excluding those voices because they are just "too much for others already struggling to cope" has real consequences. I'm in no way saying that the case above fell into this problem. It was addressing its own particular facts and I take no issue with it (in fact, I applaud it), but I just fear where the discourse could go, if looked at only from the perspective of avoidance.

Speaking only for myself, I would say this is one of the greatest harms I have faced: the idea that me bringing some of what I've been through to others' attention would just be too much for their mental health. Because they can't handle hearing about it. The result is that I'm not allowed to speak about my own lived experiences the way that others so easily and comfortably can, which has real consequences for my mental health and my ability to communicate freely and effectively. I struggled to articulate this concern in a law school assignment in 2002. The topic was sexual assault and we had been asked to write a few pages using 1st person examples from our lives. I said:

I'm not taking issue whatsoever with the aim of reducing needless exposure to traumatic material and subject matter. In fact I'm very happy to see that recognition of the importance of caring for our mental health. I absolutely agree that needless exposure to traumatic material should be avoided. But let's not forget that a lot of traumatic exposure relates to the lived experiences of people, who may in some (but not all) instances really want or need others to understand what they have been through (while others may prefer privacy).

What I am saying is at the same time as we recognize and reduce the impact of needless exposure to trauma, we should also be working on enhancing our ability to safely face the ugly realities of the world so that those who suffer through those horrifying experiences won't have to endure them alone. I'm not offering answers as to where the line should be drawn. I'm just saying that our objective in addressing vicarious trauma shouldn't just stop at avoidance or reduction of exposure, but should include strategies to enhance our ability to face it.

Trauma happens to people. We need to learn how to accept and bear that fact. We need to learn how to share that burden. We need to learn how to face the fact that it can happen even to us and to our colleagues. While we shouldn't needlessly expose ourselves to it or force others to be exposed to it, my view is that our mental health measures should do more than just protect us from exposure. Rather, what we need to learn is how to face it safely (which includes learning how to recognize when we've reached the limits of what we can bear and how to take self-protective measures, such as reducing needless exposure and handling the material as sensitively as possible when it is addressed). It's the only way to protect our mental health without sacrificing the health and inclusion of those who have been deeply impacted by trauma and don't have the luxury of looking away.

So yes it's a very good step to acknowledge the impact of vicarious trauma, but let's be cautious about where we go next in the discussion. In my view, the answer can't just be that trauma exposure is bad and should be avoided unless absolutely necessary. What we need to do is ask ourselves what measures we need to take to enhance our mental health and resilience so that we can remain open to learning from others' experiences even when they horrify us. It's an extremely basic point but one I have to keep making until I live in a world where people feel free to share their experiences, even when those experiences are just "too much."

As always, please note that I am a lawyer, not a mental health professional of any kind. I have no expertise in trauma or mental health. Also, please note that any opinions and views expressed in this blog are solely my own and are not intended to represent the views or opinions of my employer in any way. For more information about the purpose of this blog, please see here and for a bit more information about my personal perspective on this issue, please see "my story" here

I am very grateful to have received a "Clawbie" Award for this blog (which reflects the importance of this topic): https://www.clawbies.ca/2019-clawbies-canadian-law-blog-awards/

For some of my external writing on this topic, see:  
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)