Abstract
The construct of Moral Injury has gained traction in the literature on military veteran distress, however there are limitations in the evidence base which are preventing advancements in research. First, research often fails to distinguish between two widely cited, yet distinct definitions of MI. The two models conceptualise perpetration-based experiences and betrayal-based experiences respectively, which have been shown to have different outcomes in the literature. Further, Moral Injury is a clinician developed construct and there is a lack of research seeking to explore the qualitative experiences of veterans. Finally, UK research has tended to conceptualise Moral Injury using a perpetration-based model and it is unclear to what extent a betrayal-based model is relevant to this population.
This study aimed to explore UK military veterans understanding of morality, and the ways in which this was ‘injured’ in relation to their military experiences, through the use of semi structured interviews. During the initial stages of an inductive reflexive thematic analysis, it was identified that participants described experiences consistent with a model of betrayal-based Moral Injury and the paper therefore sought to provide an interpretation of participants experiences though this theoretical lens. The analysis constructed two subthemes: (1) ‘what’s’ right’: a military moral compass, and (2) betrayal of what’s right by leaders and systems.
The findings of this research demonstrated the usefulness of a model of betrayal-based Moral Injury to explore the experiences of UK military veterans and thus poses important implications for future Moral Injury research and clinical practice. It is recommended that future research continues to delineate between perpetration and betrayal-based Moral Injury and that intervention research considers specific components of betrayal-based Moral Injury in their development and research.