"Military Sexual Trauma" Increases Suicide Risk Among Survivors.

Military Sexual Trauma (MST) is a term used widely in the United States and increasingly in global discourse to encapsulate experiences of sexual assault and harassment during military service. The UK, however, has remained resistant to adopting this terminology, particularly within the Ministry of Defence (MoD) and broader governmental frameworks. This refusal is not merely semantic; it represents a deeper institutional reluctance to acknowledge and address the unique psychological, social, and structural harms that accompany sexual violence within the military. I would argue how this resistance significantly increases the risk of suicide ideation and completion among survivors of in-service sexual violence. Furthermore, it critically examines why the UK military establishment may be one of the last major institutions in the country to meaningfully recognise and support victims and survivors of sexual assault and rape. Language frames experience so when institutions fail to name a phenomenon, they often fail to understand or address it. The term "Military Sexual Trauma" provides a specific, validated category of harm that acknowledges both the context and impact of sexual violence within the armed forces. By declining to adopt this term, the UK Government and MoD deny survivors a recognised identity, a pathway to tailored care, and a sense of communal validation. This absence can exacerbate feelings of isolation, betrayal, and hopelessness, all known risk factors for suicidal ideation and behaviour. Survivors of sexual violence often experience a range of mental health issues, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, anxiety, and complex trauma. These are frequently compounded in military settings by factors such as chain-of-command dynamics, institutional denial, and the culture of stoicism. When the institution refuses to name or acknowledge the specific nature of their trauma, it deepens the psychological wound. Research from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs demonstrates that MST survivors have significantly higher rates of suicidal ideation than other veteran populations so without a similar recognition framework in the UK, survivors are left to navigate these complexities without targeted support. The UK military has historically maintained a hierarchical, masculinist, and often insular culture that prioritises discipline, loyalty, and resilience. While these values are integral to military cohesion, they can also function to silence or marginalise individuals who challenge institutional norms, particularly those who report sexual misconduct. The refusal to adopt the term MST reflects a broader culture of denial and minimisation. Survivors frequently report retaliation, career damage, and social ostracisation after disclosing sexual violence. In such an environment, the absence of institutional recognition serves to reinforce a culture of silence. If a survivor cannot name their experience within an accepted framework, they are less likely to come forward, access support, or pursue justice. This isolation contributes to feelings of entrapment and despair, further elevating suicide risk. While civilian institutions in the UK have made strides in recognising and addressing sexual violence, including through trauma-informed care and survivor advocacy, the military remains notably behind. Survivors within the armed forces face additional layers of complexity, including chain-of-command reporting structures, lack of confidentiality, and fear of career repercussions. The failure to adopt MST as a recognised term and framework results in a dearth of specialised support services tailored to military-specific experiences. Without a formal recognition of MST, the UK MoD lacks a structured system for identifying, treating, and supporting survivors. This institutional gap means that survivors often fall through the cracks, receiving generalised or inappropriate care. The disconnect between military health services and civilian mental health frameworks further complicates this issue. For those already grappling with trauma, the lack of a clear, supportive pathway to care can lead to deteriorating mental health and increased suicide risk. The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs has adopted MST as a clinical and legal category, allowing for dedicated treatment programmes, research funding, and legislative advocacy. While far from perfect, this recognition has led to the development of targeted interventions that have demonstrably improved outcomes for survivors. The contrast with the UK highlights the cost of inaction. Survivors in the UK face similar, if not more severe, challenges without the benefit of systemic recognition or support. Studies in the U.S. context show that MST specific care leads to better engagement with mental health services, reduced symptoms of PTSD and depression, and decreased suicide ideation. This demonstrates the tangible benefits of naming and addressing the problem. The UK’s refusal to follow suit not only denies these benefits to its service members but also signals a troubling disregard for their wellbeing. The reluctance to adopt MST terminology is symptomatic of broader resistance to institutional accountability. Admitting to the prevalence and impact of military sexual trauma would necessitate a reckoning with past and ongoing failures. This could expose the MoD to legal liability, reputational damage, and internal upheaval. In many ways, the institution may perceive these risks as outweighing the benefits of change,despite the human cost. There is also a legal dimension to the MoD's resistance. Recognition of MST could open the door to claims of negligence, duty of care violations, and breaches of human rights obligations. Politically, there may be concerns about undermining public confidence in the armed forces. However, these fears must be weighed against the moral imperative to protect and support those who serve. Behind every statistic is a person, a service member who joined the armed forces with a sense of duty and was met with violence, betrayal, and neglect. The refusal to recognise MST is not a neutral stance; it is an act of institutional abandonment. It signals to survivors that their pain is unacknowledged, their service is undervalued, and their lives are expendable. The tragic outcome of this message is visible in the suicide statistics that continue to plague military communities. Survivors have consistently called for greater recognition, justice, and support. Many recount being disbelieved, blamed, or punished for reporting their assaults. Some have lost careers, relationships, and hope. Their testimonies are a powerful indictment of a system that prioritises institutional preservation over individual wellbeing. Listening to these voices is not just a moral imperative, it is a crucial step toward reform. See: https://www.forward-assist.com/forward-assist-research-1 The UK Government and MoD must confront the reality of military sexual trauma. This begins with the adoption of the term MST as a formal category within military health and legal frameworks. Once this happens the military may be able to begin to rebuild trust with survivors and reduce the preventable loss of life due to suicide. The refusal of the UK Government and Ministry of Defence to adopt the term "Military Sexual Trauma" is more than a linguistic oversight, it is a systemic failure that endangers lives and by denying survivors recognition, support, and justice, the institution exacerbates the very conditions that lead to suicide ideation and completion. It is time for the UK to join the international community in acknowledging MST, supporting survivors, and committing to meaningful reform. The cost of continued silence is too high.

Tony Wright CEO Forward Assist