Abstract
BackgroundPost-September 11, 2001, the U.S. government has labeled thousands of Afghan war detainees "unlawful combatants". This label effectively deprives these detainees of the protection they would receive as "prisoners of war" under international humanitarian law. Reports have emerged that indicate that thousands of detainees being held in secret military facilities outside the United States are being subjected to questionable "stress and duress" interrogation tactics by U.S. authorities. If true, American military physicians could be inadvertently becoming complicit in detainee abuse. Moreover, the American government's openly negative views towards such detainees could result in military physicians not wanting to provide reasonable care to detainees, despite it being their ethical duty to do so.DiscussionThis paper assesses the physician's obligations to treat war detainees in the light of relevant instruments of international humanitarian law and medical ethics. It briefly outlines how detainee abuse flourished in apartheid South Africa when state physicians became morally detached from the interests of their detainee patients. I caution U.S physicians not to let the same mindset befall them. I urge the U.S. medical community to advocate for detainee rights in the U.S, regardless of the political culture the detainee emerged from. I offer recommendations to U.S physicians facing dual loyalty conflicts of interest in the "war on terror".SummaryIf U.S. physicians are faced with a conflict of interest between following national policies or international principles of humanitarian law and medical ethics, they should opt to adhere to the latter when treating war detainees. It is important for the U.S. medical community to speak out against possible detainee abuse by the U.S. government.
Highlights
Post-September 11, 2001, the U.S government has labeled thousands of Afghan war detainees "unlawful combatants"
Summary: If U.S physicians are faced with a conflict of interest between following national policies or international principles of humanitarian law and medical ethics, they should opt to adhere to the latter when treating war detainees
It is important for the U.S medical community to speak out against possible detainee abuse by the U.S government
Summary
Allegations of abuse On December 26th 2002, The Washington Post reported that hundreds of detainees who are being held in secret military facilities outside the U.S are being subjected to questionable "stress and duress" interrogation tactics by U.S authorities. [5] Sources interviewed by the newspaper claimed that detainees are sometimes blindfolded and "thrown into walls", bound in awkward, painful positions, subjected to loud noises, and deprived of sleep with a twenty four hour bombardment of lights. [78] When physicians stationed in military detention camps observe that detention conditions of detainees fall short of the standards required under international humanitarian law, or are of the professional opinion that such conditions are compromising, or could compromise, the health interests of detainees, the physician's duty to protect the well-being of detainees must be regarded as paramount This view is articulated in the AMA Guidelines which state: "A physician shall, while caring for a patient, regard responsibility to the patient as paramount." [79] According to the DLHR the health professional should recognize that passive participation, or acquiescence, in violations of a patient's human rights is a breach of loyalty to the patient. Whereas the gloves have seemingly come off in the "war on terror" physicians involved in the war should practice ethics-based medicine and keep theirs on
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 
Published Version (
Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
