Indecent medicine: In defense of the absolute prohibition against physician participation in torture

Richard S. Matthews

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In a recent article, Gross (2004) argues that physicians in decent societies have a civic duty to aid in the torturing of suspected terrorists during emergency conditions. The argument presupposes a communitarian society in which considerations of common good override questions of individual rights, but it is also utilitarian. In the event that there is a ticking bomb and no other alternative available for defusing it, torture must be used, and physicians must play their part. In an earlier article, Jones (1980) also argues in favour of physician participation in torture, going so far as to enthusiastically endorse the allocation of research resources as well to ensure that the ability to meet emergency situations is as efficient as scientifically possible. I argue against both these views and defend the absolute prohibition against torture generally, and against any participation by physicians in particular. I show that these arguments are incompatible with liberal or decent societies, and that the institutional requirements for making torture effective would constitute an unacceptable degradation both of medical ethics and practice, as well as of political institutions in general.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)W34-W44
Number of pages11
JournalAmerican Journal of Bioethics
Volume6
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jul 2006
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Torture
medicine
Medicine
Physicians
Emergencies
Bombs
ethics
Medical Ethics
Resource Allocation
aid
Social Justice
resource
defence
society
prohibition
participation
Research

Cite this

@article{41e1e0880a4c405bbd8abbe7c18c11cc,
title = "Indecent medicine: In defense of the absolute prohibition against physician participation in torture",
abstract = "In a recent article, Gross (2004) argues that physicians in decent societies have a civic duty to aid in the torturing of suspected terrorists during emergency conditions. The argument presupposes a communitarian society in which considerations of common good override questions of individual rights, but it is also utilitarian. In the event that there is a ticking bomb and no other alternative available for defusing it, torture must be used, and physicians must play their part. In an earlier article, Jones (1980) also argues in favour of physician participation in torture, going so far as to enthusiastically endorse the allocation of research resources as well to ensure that the ability to meet emergency situations is as efficient as scientifically possible. I argue against both these views and defend the absolute prohibition against torture generally, and against any participation by physicians in particular. I show that these arguments are incompatible with liberal or decent societies, and that the institutional requirements for making torture effective would constitute an unacceptable degradation both of medical ethics and practice, as well as of political institutions in general.",
author = "Matthews, {Richard S.}",
year = "2006",
month = "7",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1080/15265160600686372",
language = "English",
volume = "6",
pages = "W34--W44",
journal = "American Journal of Bioethics",
issn = "1526-5161",
publisher = "Routledge",
number = "3",

}

Indecent medicine : In defense of the absolute prohibition against physician participation in torture. / Matthews, Richard S.

In: American Journal of Bioethics, Vol. 6, No. 3, 01.07.2006, p. W34-W44.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Indecent medicine

T2 - In defense of the absolute prohibition against physician participation in torture

AU - Matthews, Richard S.

PY - 2006/7/1

Y1 - 2006/7/1

N2 - In a recent article, Gross (2004) argues that physicians in decent societies have a civic duty to aid in the torturing of suspected terrorists during emergency conditions. The argument presupposes a communitarian society in which considerations of common good override questions of individual rights, but it is also utilitarian. In the event that there is a ticking bomb and no other alternative available for defusing it, torture must be used, and physicians must play their part. In an earlier article, Jones (1980) also argues in favour of physician participation in torture, going so far as to enthusiastically endorse the allocation of research resources as well to ensure that the ability to meet emergency situations is as efficient as scientifically possible. I argue against both these views and defend the absolute prohibition against torture generally, and against any participation by physicians in particular. I show that these arguments are incompatible with liberal or decent societies, and that the institutional requirements for making torture effective would constitute an unacceptable degradation both of medical ethics and practice, as well as of political institutions in general.

AB - In a recent article, Gross (2004) argues that physicians in decent societies have a civic duty to aid in the torturing of suspected terrorists during emergency conditions. The argument presupposes a communitarian society in which considerations of common good override questions of individual rights, but it is also utilitarian. In the event that there is a ticking bomb and no other alternative available for defusing it, torture must be used, and physicians must play their part. In an earlier article, Jones (1980) also argues in favour of physician participation in torture, going so far as to enthusiastically endorse the allocation of research resources as well to ensure that the ability to meet emergency situations is as efficient as scientifically possible. I argue against both these views and defend the absolute prohibition against torture generally, and against any participation by physicians in particular. I show that these arguments are incompatible with liberal or decent societies, and that the institutional requirements for making torture effective would constitute an unacceptable degradation both of medical ethics and practice, as well as of political institutions in general.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33745101023&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/15265160600686372

DO - 10.1080/15265160600686372

M3 - Article

VL - 6

SP - W34-W44

JO - American Journal of Bioethics

JF - American Journal of Bioethics

SN - 1526-5161

IS - 3

ER -