SOVIET HISTORY LESSONS

To Leonid Plyushch, a victim of psychiatric terror. 

Pushkin: You yourself are crazy!

Chaadaev: Why am I crazy?

Pushkin: You understand equality, but you yourself live in slavery.

Chaadev (pondering): You’re right: I’m crazy.

A. Platonov, The Lycée Student. 

Introduction.

At the present time there are many well-known cases in which dissidents in the USSR have been declared mentally ill, and there is reason to fear that this method will be even more widely applied. It is not hard to explain this phenomenon. On the one hand, this method is very convenient for the authorities. It makes it possible to confine a person for an indefinite period, to keep him in strict isolation, to use mind-affecting drugs for his “re-education,” to complicate the struggle for open trials and for the release of such individuals (since even the most objective person, if he does not know the patient, will always harbor some doubts as to his mental soundness). It deprives the victim who has been dealt with in this fashion of even those few rights enjoyed by a prisoner. It provides a way to discredit the ideas and actions of dissidents. And so forth. 

But there is another and no less critical consideration. Although as a rule dissidents are well informed on the law, so that they do not make mistakes during the preliminary investigation and in court, they have turned out to be completely helpless when faced with a skilled psychiatrist under orders above to find them non-responsible. Inevitably, all this has engendered new fear and bewilderment among the dissidents. It is one reason for the recent unexpected “renunciations” and recantations. Thus the fear once inspired by the preliminary investigation, a fear later misspelled by a knowledge of the law and how to apply it, has now been revived vis-a-vis forensic psychiatry. A feeling of doom — of being unable to combat this method of persecution — has become widespread.

All this makes it essential to summarize in a single handbook the experience gained from many forensic examinations as well as the basic principles of psychiatric theory needed to assure that correct behavior which will offer the least possible grounds for declaring the subject to be non-responsible. The authors of this book, a former “mental patient” and a former psychiatrist, hope that with their combination of professional knowledge and practical experience they will succeed in making this a useful guide. 

This handbook does not purport to be an exhaustive analysis of the problems of psychiatry. Indeed, certain matters have been deliberately simplified, since this work is intended for the general reader.

The Law: An Outline.

You may be seen by a psychiatrist, even without your consent, in any of the following three cases:

​1. Compulsory examination or compulsory hospitalization within the framework of standard medical regulations. 

​

Your beliefs, your stand on social issues, your actions, or your circle of acquaintances have prompted the KGB operations group to observe you closely. Because of certain objective circumstances, they do not want to institute criminal proceedings against you. Then the KGB (often not directly but through the police, the prosecutor’s office, a local government body, a confidential agent, etc.) reports you to a medical facility as someone who is (in their opinion) mentally ill, at the same time indicating the reasons for their interest in you.

In this case a psychiatrist from a polyclinic, dispensary, hospital, or city first aid station must examine you and, if they deem it necessary, commit you to an ordinary psychiatric hospital. This kind of examination may be conducted at your home, at your place of work, at the site of an “incident,” in a preliminary detention cell, at an appropriate facility, or in any other place. 

If the psychiatrist finds that your symptoms are not such as to require observation or treatment in a psychiatric hospital, you are registered as an out-patient at a psychiatric dispensary or the psychiatric department of a polyclinic. 

You can be committed to an ordinary psychiatric hospital on the basis of the following symptoms: 1) a mental disorder posing danger to yourself; 2) a mental disorder posing danger to those around you; 3) a mental disorder which can be diagnosed only by examination on an in-patient basis; 4) a pronounced mental disorder which cannot be treated successfully on an out-patient basis; 5) a state of “acute psychosis” (what payment term “a violent patient”). 

Formally, discharge from one’s status as a psychiatric outpatient or discharge from a hospital depends only upon medial findings (i.e. on the psychiatrist). 

If a doctor has determined that you are ill, the forwarding (if you are hospitalized) and evaluation of your complaints, statements, petitions, and letters depends entirely on the professional competence and conscience of the doctor, since he is assigned this responsibility by law. Relatives, acquaintances, and other interested parties may send requests and petitions concerning you to medical officials (the Chief Psychiatrist of the USSR, of the republic, region, territory, city, district).

In psychiatric practice, as in any other human activity, mistakes happen. A physician is not liable under the law for a professional mistake.

This state of affairs may be utilized by the authorities to explain a compulsory hospitalization that subsequently proves to have been unwarranted. By the same token, an incompetent or morally unreliable psychiatrist can give an incorrect diagnosis of your mental health without risking future repercussions for himself. 

2. Forensic psychiatric examination after criminal proceedings have been instituted. 

After selecting the means of restraint to be employed in your case (usually arrest), the investigative authorities (or the prosecutor’s office) may send you for forensic psychiatric examination. For this purpose a document is drawn up which sets forth those things you said or did which raised doubts as to your mental health.

Usually the preliminary investigator (or prosecutor) does not inform you of such doubts, and does not show you the relevant documents. Nor does he inform you of the very fact of the impending expert examination, or its time or place. 

Forensic psychiatric examinations are conducted by a board of psychiatrists (no less than three). You may be subjected to either of the following kinds of forensic psychiatric examination: 1) on an out-patient basis; 2) on an inpatient basis.

Examination on an out-patient basis is usually conducted at a medical facility or in a room at the investigative prison. 

It may last from a few minutes to several hours.

Examination on an in-patient is conducted at a psychiatric hospital (at the Serbsky Institute of Forensic Psychiatry in Moscow; in the observation wards or the regular “acute” wards of ordinary psychiatric hospitals; in the psychiatric wards of prison hospitals). 

The law specifies no time limits for expert examination on an in-patient basis. It usually lasts from weeks to several months. 

If you are found to be non-responsible, it is unlikely that you will be informed of the decision of the board of experts. From that moment, defense counsel will be allowed to come into the case, and you will no doubt be excluded from participation in the investigative proceedings. 

The law permits a second, supplementary examination; the number of examinations is not limited. If there is a difference of opinion among boards of experts, the investigator (or prosecutor) is responsible for selecting the one correct opinion. 

Usually a person declared non-responsible is not summoned to the courtroom, and is not informed of the verdict in his case.

Sometimes the expert examination is conducted in the courtroom. Essentially, it in no way differs from the usual examination on an out-patient basis. By decision of the court, judicial proceedings can be suspended to send a defendant for expert examination on an in-patient basis. The court determines the type of hospital to which a person declared non-responsible is sent; i. e., whether to an ordinary hospital or a special psychiatric hospital of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. Unfortunately, it is extremely unlikely that a court will allow someone to remain at home under supervision of the psychiatrist instead of ordering compulsory isolation. 

3. If you are a witness in some case, compulsory examination on an out-patient basis is also possible. The formal grounds for this is the doubt entertained by the preliminary investigator (prosecutor, court) as to your capacity accurately to understand the facts relevant  to the case, and to give accurate testimony about the facts. In this event, examination on an in-patient basis may be conducted only with your consent. (We hope you will not give it).

The law on notaries public affords you the opportunity to arm yourself in advance with objective findings by psychiatrists as to your mental heath. Upon written request by you, the notary will issue an order for expert examination, indicating the kind of examination and where it is to be conducted. After this, you have only to pay for this kind of notarial assistance and to do everything necessary to see that this psychiatric evaluation of you becomes widely known, in case you are arrested and an attempt is made to declare you mentally ill. (Cf. Regulations on the RSFSR State Notariate, Articles 66 and 67, and Instructions on the Procedure for Performing Notarial Acts at State Notary Offices of the RSFSR, pp. 139-46).

General Information on Psychiatry. 

“When we lack understanding words come quickly to take its place.” (Goethe, Faust). The principles of the functioning of the human brain are still unclear. Neurophysiology and other laboratory-oriented sciences dealing with the brain are not yet in a position to understand the “psychic” work of systematic science, the concepts of health and illness and equally enigmatic and elusive. This uncertainty of concepts which is characteristic of medicine as a whole, is especially pronounced in psychiatry. Madness is regarded as both a biological and a social (historical, philosophical, juridical) problem. 

On the whole, there is no basis in modern psychiatry for applying a system of categories — or even classifications — of mental illnesses. Thus at a diagnostic symposium in Leningrad, twenty of the nation’s leading psychiatrists gave twelve different diagnosis of one and the same patient. 

​

All illnesses of a psychiatric nature may be divided into two groups: 1) quasi-defined illnesses, singled out by convention as independent forms from among the chaotic store of facts accumulated over the last century; 2) authentic diseases, whose causes are known to science, and which have characteristic dynamics. Whereas the models for the former are purely rhetorical, the models for the latter are based on specific scientific discoveries and can be verified. 

Subjective observation of the patient — their behavior, speech, memory, etc. — is still the basic method of clinical psychiatric examination. Use is also made of equally subjective information on the patient obtained from his associates, acquaintances, relatives, official documents, and so forth. Other methods (laboratory analyses, electroencephalographic studies) are of secondary importance. 

Physicians engaged in practical work are not overly troubled by the vagueness in the delimitation of mental illnesses, since the treatment is usually determined not by the diagnosis but by individual symptoms. 

In psychiatric theory there are no generally-accepted  criterial for “health” and “illness.” There is a mass of abstract concepts, ranging from philosophical … to cybernetic, which are absolutely unsuitable in psychiatric practice. And yet the daily activity of a physician is impossible without some criterion, however conditional, of health. Therefore, psychiatric practice involves the use of a conventional model of mental health that is convenient, simple, and understandable — the so-called model of the “rentier who clips coupons.” A “rentier” is a person of limited intellect and bourgeois tastes who is rather civilized than cultured; he does not want to take risks …, being satisfied with his modest but solid social position and he is not given to enthusiasms. (“The higher you fly, the harder you fall.”) He has no capacity for any kind of creativity, and is a pillar of any regime. The instinct for self-preservation is the beacon that guides him through life. And that life is monotonous but serene. In the sea of troubles, cataclysms, and potholes of our existence, he regards his lifestyle as the only correct one. 

The content of the “rentier” is not scientific, and is nowhere mentioned in the Soviet psychiatric literature. But doctors engaged in practical work use it (although not always consciously) in their daily practice — not, of course, as a rigid standard fixed once and for all. (From what follows, you will understand why the “average psychiatrist” is fond of the concept of the “rentier”).

Dissent as a Problem of Psychiatry. 

The freedom of each of us as an individual is limited by the interests of society. Laws and morals are the bearers of such limitations. The behavior of a mentally ill person — behavior that is “silly,” “strange,” etc. — is not desirable for society, even when it does not directly violate the law.

Psychiatry is concerned with protecting citizens against such behavior. The practice of compulsory psychiatric hospitalization is considered justified from not only the medical but the social viewpoint. And if “health” is “desirable behavior” and “illness” is “undesirable behavior,” the social purpose of psychiatry is to convert undesirable behavior into desirable behavior. Thus the use of compulsion on a mentally ill individual is justified by the benefit to society. This use of “evil and good” has caused the branching off, in the West, of an “anti-psychiatric” school from the classic psychiatry. 

The “anti-psychiatrists” declare: “The ‘content’ of psychiatric science is the suppression of the revolutionary subconscious for the sake of the state. The history of psychiatry is the history of the methods by which society has obliterated psychic resistance to the prevailing conditions of life.”

One must admit that, given the vagueness of the diagnosis and the existence of multiple “scientific schools of psychiatry,” the unlawful expansion of psychiatric authority is quite possible. 

Under the influence of the “social demands” made by the totalitarian regimes of various states, the boundaries of the psychiatric norm are determined rather by immediate necessity than by scientific and historic considerations. (Cf. the claim of “anti-psychiatrists” that psychiatry, in fulfilling the demand of a class society, has always transformed revolutionaries into psychopaths). 

The use of psychiatry as a punitive measure in the USSR is based on a deliberate interpretation of dissent (in the well-known sense of that word) as a psychiatric problem. In a monograph titled “The Theory and Practice of Forensic Psychiatric  Examination,” Professor D. R. Lunts affirms that any unlawful act, precisely and simply by virtue of its being unlawful, calls for psychiatric analysis (the concept of the “rentier”), his rationale for this being that under socialism no social basis for crime exists. (Crime resulting from social stresses is a phenomenon that Lunts reserves for capitalism). 

A direct purpose is served by “exculpation,” i.e., declaring non-responsible this dissenters who, in one way or another, have expressed disagreement with particular aspects of the Soviet government’s domestic and foreign policies. For this purpose, the following psychiatric diagnoses are almost invariably used: latent (vyalotekushchaya), and paranoid (paranoiyalnoe) development of personalty. Other diagnoses are scarcely ever made; i.e., dissent is not one of their theoretical symptoms (Fortunately for you; otherwise you would have to learn more about psychiatry).  

​

LATENT SCHIZOPHRENIA. We quote the experienced expert, Professor Timofeyev:

“The difficulties in diagnosis become greater the more we study the mild and indistinct forms go schizophrenia (i.e., latent schizophrenia - B. And G.). There questions are still controversial, since some psychiatrists do not recognize these forms of the illness, while other speak of their being relatively distinct entities.”

In another work, Timofeyev affirms:

“Dissent may be due to a diseased condition of the brain when the pathological process develops very slowly and mildly (latent form of schizophrenia - G.), and its other symptoms remain unnoticeable for a certain period (occasionally until a criminal act is committed).”

Thus Professor Timofeyev recognizes the existence of latent schizophrenia:

“Since it is precisely this age-group (twenty or twenty-nine years - B. And G.) that is characterized by increased conflict, a striving for self-assertion, the rejection of traditions, opinions, norms, etc., grounds are provided for the myth that certain young persons - who are actually schizophrenics - are wrongly confined in psychiatric hospitals; that they are (allegedly) kept there because they don’t think like everybody else.”

By “latent” is meant that form of schizophrenia in which all manifestations of the illness are expressed only to a degree that is “marginal” or “slight,” and there  are no such gross symptoms as hallucinations. The following symptoms are those most characteristic of latent schizophrenia (they are quoted from a textbook for students at medical institutes): introversion, listlessness, lessened interest in life, generalized pessimism and melancholy, preoccupation with inner experiences, inappropriate thoughts and actions, bigotry ana rigidity of opinions, and suspiciousness, etc. So that if you are an introvert with a penchant for self-analysis; if you are uncommunicative; if you do not want to change your convictions because you do not consider then “groundless”, if the fact that you are being tailed and your telephone conversations are being bugged is attributed to “suspiciousness,” or perhaps a “delusion of persecution,” the conclusion is clear… Nor will you be saved by the fact that you are successfully coping with your job responsibilities, or with creative work; that you show an interest in it and are even “growing” professionally. Although formally the presence of a psychic pathology does not rule out responsibility for your actions your “exculpation” is inevitable.

According to data from the Serbsky Institute of Forensic Psychiatry, about half of those people afflicted with latent schizophrenia are found to be competent (deesposobny). But we know of no case where a schizophrenic was found to be accountable (vmenyaemy). That very experienced expert, Proffesor Lunts, considers it advisable to introduce into civil legislation the concept of “limited” or “partial” competence, and deliberately effects the criminal “exculpation” of healthy people, since “each class and each occupation has its own ethic.” (N.B. Limitation of competence and accountability is actually necessary. It exists as a legal principle in the jurisprudence of all civilized states.)

Paranoid development of the personality. This diagnosis is equally controversial and vague. In order to realize what is hidden under this terminological disguise, one should know the following:

!. In psychiatry, a distinction is made among three kinds of ideas (an addition to “idea” in the usual sense). First, a dominant idea - found in healthy persons caught up in some aspiration and wholly consumed by the associated thoughts. Second, an exaggerated idea (pathological). This is a conclusion usually rational in content but unjustifiably exaggerated in its importance. The objective importance of an exaggerated idea is as nothing compared to its subjective evaluation by the individual. Third, a delusion (pathological). This is a mistaken conclusion having no real basis and from which one cannot be dissuaded. A complex of delusions is called delirium (bred).

2. Of the several kinds of delusions, two are of interest to us. First, reformist delusions: improvement in the conditions of life can be achieved only by means of revising existing views in accordance with the subject’s idea of restructuring reality. Second, litigious delusions: the subject’s  unfounded conviction that his personal rights as an individual are being violated and trampled underfoot. He believes the reasons for this are “quite clear”. He sends many complains and statements demanding that “justice“ be done.

3. The pathological development of character is called psychopathy. Extreme variations of normal character exist; the frontier between normality and psychopathy is vague and diffuse. In the dynamics of psychopathy, periods of compensation (in the social sense) and decompensation are observed.

Of all the categories of psychopathy, we are interested in only one: paranoid psychopathy. It is characterized by suspiciousness, anxiety, a propensity to form exaggerated and delusional ideas; right, one-sided, hidebound thought; and brooding over insignificant events. In a conflict situation, paranoid psychopaths will manifest paranoid reactions. These, in time, give rise to a paranoid development of the personality; that is, a coherent system of paranoia - in our case, of a litigious or reformist nature.

Scenario: a dominant idea arises, which is then replaced by a exaggerated idea, and finally by a delusion. The patient develops a coherent (that is, extremely convincing but absurd) system of delusions, then a persecution complex with a tendency to exaggerate his own importance. (This formulation is based on the course in psychiatry given to students at medical institutes the USSR.

As you can see, the evidence used to establish this variety psychopathy is very relative.And conversely: just try to prove that your opinions on the occupation of Czechoslovakia or the absence of democratic freedoms in the USSR are not mistaken opinions but have real foundations…

Or that the tail put on you and your friends and relatives is not a “delusion of persecution.” Or that your subjective evaluation of political life inside the USSR is by no means contradicted by the actual facts… Or that your release from your job after you (among others) signed a “statement of protest,” was a violation of your rights… Those experts from the Institute of Forensic Psychiatry, Doctors of Medical Science Pechernikova and Kosachev, state directly: “Most often,  it is the paranoid personality structure that gives rise to ideas of struggling for truth and justice.” And “The litigious paranoidal state develops after damage to the patient’s interests in traumatic circumstances, given the impression of infringement upon the person’s legal rights.” And: “A characteristic trait of these (exaggerated -n B. And G.) conditions is the conviction as to the patient’s own righteousness, his compulsion to defend his ‘trampled rights,’ and the effect of the patient’s experiences on his personality.” And again: “They make use of a courtroom as a platform for making speeches and issuing appeals.” And how should the psychiatrists evaluate the mental state nof Georgi Dimitrov, who made a speech at his trail?… And the any other social activists, with their all-consuming belief in the ideal and their rejection of a personal life?… To be cautious and not very intelligent but “crafty,” means to be healthy. But “woe comes from wit.” All that now remains to be done is to officially introduce into psychiatry a new variety of psychopathology called theChatsky complex.

Finally, a diagnosis of paranoid psychopathy or paranoid development of personality does not ipso facto indicate, by any means, that “exculpation” is necessary. According to official statistics from the Institute of Forensic Psychiatry, 95% of such patients are declared accountable. But that is in theory. The statistics for dissenters are different, but they are not published. In their very detailed “picture” of litigious paranoid development, Pechernikova and Kosachev have “forgotten,” to state the percentage of “litigious paranoids” declared not accountable.

THE PSYCHOLOGY OF THE PSYCHIATRIST

The twentieth century has brought to the fore the problem of communication. Today people in different professions, speaking the same language, have trouble understanding one another. In the psychiatrist’s office a great deal will depend upon your ability to communicate. Make sure that the experts understands you in precisely the way your needs demand. Do everything possible to see that the expert’s “instructions” to find you non-responsible - if he has such instructions - are not transformed into a reasoned conclusion.  Remember that a psychiatrist is an ordinary [person with no supernatural capacities. The opinion current among some people that a psychiatrist can “see into your soul with a glance” and “read your thoughts or compel you to speak the truth” is absurd. No therapeutic, hypnotic, or pharmacological effect can reveal your secret thoughts or compel you to speak if you don’t want to. Likewise, the notion that a psychiatrist has a towering intellect and a profound knowledge of human psychology (in the ordinary sense of the world) is not always tenable.

A psychiatrist is a doctor who spends  most of his time inside a psychiatric institution among mentally-ill people. He is used to seeing suffering, violence, the most unpleasant perversions, and grief. His patients include lunatic children and adults, men and women Hence the fact that a person has chosen this particular profession, and has successfully passed the “trail period” in psychiatry (which is critical for many), of itself presupposes certain basic personality traits. The years during which a doctor spends every day in that “cemetery of minds that have perished” leave their impress on his personality, and alter it irreversibly.

The following are the commonest types of psychiatrist:

The neophyte psychiatrist. He sincerely likes psychiatry, and considers it a full-fledged scientific discipline. Owing to a lack of everyday and professional experience, and a deficit of knowledge, he sees psychopathology where it is patently absent. He does not understand the artificiality of psychiatric concepts. Hence in his work he is impressionable, and may sincerely “detect” a pathological state in you. He does not serve on boards of forensic psychiatrists. He is not dangerous, because it is not he who will decide your fate.

The types of mature psychiatrists must be examined in greater detail, since it is they who will decide your future.

The scientist. He has preserved his “youthful” passion for psychiatry, and regards it as his true vocation. For him, psychiatry is a scientific discipline (though with reservations). As a rule, he does not feel that dissent falls under the jurisdiction of psychiatry. He does not like to serve on boards of experts determining non-responsibility. (“I’m a doctor not an investigator.”) He is sufficiently aware to understand political considerations but tries not to “dirty his hands.” Help him by using the correct tactics.

The candidate for the degree of Doctor of Medicine Science. His chief trait: unconscionably extending the borderlines of the illnesses described in his dissertation. Convince him by your behavior that you are not  suitable “material.”

The disciple of Voltaire (a free-thinker). He is an intelligent, experienced man and psychiatrist. He has long since become disillusioned with psychiatry as a science. Highly intelligent, loves art and literature, and can talk about them at length. Passive as regards social problems, since he doesn’t believe in the success of any social reforms (the wisdom of Ecclesiastes). It is not excluded that he will follow the official “line” in his superficial comments on social questions. Somewhat cowardly, and cynical. Has a perfect understanding of the political situation, but even under pressure will declare you mentally healthy. Moreover, because of his cowardice he will do this in a way so convincing as to remove from himself all suspicion of “sympathy” for you: “all fixed up to a ’T.’”

The philistine. Intellect and special knowledge not above average.  Considers himself an intelligent and experienced doctor, and his life-style a desirable example for others. Within the framework of the “general line” he is a social activist. Highly adaptable to external conditions (“social mimicry”). Does not understand such phenomena as surrealistic art (“as if horses really flew!”), modern poetry (“But where is the rhyme?”), etc. Sincerely feels that your view of society is immoral. His basic arguments: “After all, you had an apartment, a family, and a job. So why did you do it?” It is not recommended that you talk to this contemporary “rentier” about abstract subjects, philosophy, theories of physics, etc. On the topic of modern art, try to stay at his level. He is dangerous. He may detect a pathological condition. Yields easily to pressure from above. Always justifies himself (in his own eyes) by citing authorities or a psychiatric “school.”

The professional hangman. Deliberately effects the “exculpation” of mentally healthy people. Is usually a qualified specialist, so that your only recourse is not to display a single “symptom”. In this case he might, because of a curious kind of professional self-respect, not want to “dirty his hands” with an “out-and-out” frame-up.”

​

PRACTICAL SUGGESTIONS ON YOUR TACTICS

The police agencies have an important advantage over the dissenters: they are functionally amoral.  The principle  that “the end justifies the means” is employed by the state against citizens who behave like the little boy in Andersen’s famous story about the King who was wearing no clothes. Pseudo-scientific theories as to the class nature of morality make it possible to openly immoral toward “enemies of the Soviet people and the socialist system.” And what is morality? The truth is morel, but a lie is not. Sincerity and compassion are moral, etc. As a rule, dissidents recognize just this kind of “extra-class” morality.

Here is what all this adds up to when you are undergoing preliminary investigation, a trail, or psychiatric examination. First, it means giving truthful testimony on all matters of interest to the KGB or the court - testimony that is patently disastrous for you as the one being questioned. Two, it means “prompting” the KGB and the court to look into circumstances and motives they hadn’t known about, and providing the psychiatrist with the “symptoms” he needs. Third, it means permitting yourself an inadmissible weakness toward the investigator, for whom it is “vitally necessary to conduct a successful investigation,” and toward any witness who is being cowardly “out of a fear of losing his job,” etc. Unfortunately, these are facts. Lying is a nasty business. But  just remember  that your fate depends on your willingness to be amoral (and your skill at doing so) vis-a-vis persons and organizations who espouse the morals of Hottentots. On the basis of our own experience, and that of hundreds of comrades, we affirm: if abstract morality determines the behavior of a person under investigation, on trail, or undergoing expert examination, this contravenes his vital interests. Correct behavior on your part during a psychiatric examination (as during the preliminary investigation or a trail) involves not only the requisite elementary knowledge of the theory and practice of psychiatry but “down-to-earth” morality.

All our recommendations are intended for the “average dissident.” Naturally, we cannot take into account all the diversity of particular circumstances, interests, and life-histories. It is by no means obligatory to follow some concrete suggestion if it is contradicts objective reality.Besides, this could be harmful. For example, it would be senseless to deny a brain injury in your past, if it has been recorded in your documents; to deny stammering if you stammer; etc. It is desirable that your potential witnesses should know how to give equally correct and “clean” testimony as to your mental health. The information you gave the doctor may not coincide with the materials in the investigative file. But in the first place, the law does not prohibit a suspect or accused person from giving testimony known to be false. In the second place, the information available to the psychiatrists, although not secret from the KGB (in Soviet law privileged medical communications exist as a purely formal category), cannot be used in the materials of the investigative and judicial examination. But it should be borne firmly in mind that one must be cautious in giving the psychiatrist any information on specific matters of interest to the KGB, since in time that information might be “processed.”