Indecent medicine revisited: Considering physician involvement in torture

Richard S Matthews

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapterResearchpeer-review

Abstract

Although physician involvement in torture has been systematically documented and condemned by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Physicians for Human Rights, and other human rights organizations, less attention has been paid to the arguments that favor the participation of physicians in torture. Perhaps this is because of a widespread sense that torture is so completely antithetical to medical ethics as to require no discussion. Doctors who torture or otherwise contribute in deliberately harming individuals would then be so beyond the pale as not even to require reasoned criticism. However, the literature is not uniformly opposed to physician participation. Gary Jones (1980) explicitly argues for doctor participation in torture when states of emergency exist and no other effective means are available to resolve the crisis. Because effectiveness in crisis resolution is crucial and because effective torture requires medical involvement, clinical and research resources are needed to increase the likelihood of success. More recently, Michael Gross (2004) argues that physicians have a civic duty to aid their security forces in the interrogation of certain suspects.
Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationPhysicians at War
Subtitle of host publicationThe Dual-Loyalties Challenge
EditorsFritz Allhoff
Place of PublicationDordrecht
PublisherSpringer
Pages105-125
Number of pages21
ISBN (Print)978-1-4020-6911-6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2008
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

torture
physician
medicine
human rights
participation
Amnesty International
state of emergency
medical ethics
criticism
resources

Cite this

Matthews, R. S. (2008). Indecent medicine revisited: Considering physician involvement in torture. In F. Allhoff (Ed.), Physicians at War: The Dual-Loyalties Challenge (pp. 105-125). Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6912-3_7
Matthews, Richard S. / Indecent medicine revisited : Considering physician involvement in torture. Physicians at War: The Dual-Loyalties Challenge. editor / Fritz Allhoff. Dordrecht : Springer, 2008. pp. 105-125
@inbook{41614c59330b4c9bbdcc7ac11756cc82,
title = "Indecent medicine revisited: Considering physician involvement in torture",
abstract = "Although physician involvement in torture has been systematically documented and condemned by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Physicians for Human Rights, and other human rights organizations, less attention has been paid to the arguments that favor the participation of physicians in torture. Perhaps this is because of a widespread sense that torture is so completely antithetical to medical ethics as to require no discussion. Doctors who torture or otherwise contribute in deliberately harming individuals would then be so beyond the pale as not even to require reasoned criticism. However, the literature is not uniformly opposed to physician participation. Gary Jones (1980) explicitly argues for doctor participation in torture when states of emergency exist and no other effective means are available to resolve the crisis. Because effectiveness in crisis resolution is crucial and because effective torture requires medical involvement, clinical and research resources are needed to increase the likelihood of success. More recently, Michael Gross (2004) argues that physicians have a civic duty to aid their security forces in the interrogation of certain suspects.",
author = "Matthews, {Richard S}",
year = "2008",
doi = "10.1007/978-1-4020-6912-3_7",
language = "English",
isbn = "978-1-4020-6911-6",
pages = "105--125",
editor = "Fritz Allhoff",
booktitle = "Physicians at War",
publisher = "Springer",
address = "Germany",

}

Matthews, RS 2008, Indecent medicine revisited: Considering physician involvement in torture. in F Allhoff (ed.), Physicians at War: The Dual-Loyalties Challenge. Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 105-125. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6912-3_7

Indecent medicine revisited : Considering physician involvement in torture. / Matthews, Richard S.

Physicians at War: The Dual-Loyalties Challenge. ed. / Fritz Allhoff. Dordrecht : Springer, 2008. p. 105-125.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapterResearchpeer-review

TY - CHAP

T1 - Indecent medicine revisited

T2 - Considering physician involvement in torture

AU - Matthews, Richard S

PY - 2008

Y1 - 2008

N2 - Although physician involvement in torture has been systematically documented and condemned by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Physicians for Human Rights, and other human rights organizations, less attention has been paid to the arguments that favor the participation of physicians in torture. Perhaps this is because of a widespread sense that torture is so completely antithetical to medical ethics as to require no discussion. Doctors who torture or otherwise contribute in deliberately harming individuals would then be so beyond the pale as not even to require reasoned criticism. However, the literature is not uniformly opposed to physician participation. Gary Jones (1980) explicitly argues for doctor participation in torture when states of emergency exist and no other effective means are available to resolve the crisis. Because effectiveness in crisis resolution is crucial and because effective torture requires medical involvement, clinical and research resources are needed to increase the likelihood of success. More recently, Michael Gross (2004) argues that physicians have a civic duty to aid their security forces in the interrogation of certain suspects.

AB - Although physician involvement in torture has been systematically documented and condemned by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Physicians for Human Rights, and other human rights organizations, less attention has been paid to the arguments that favor the participation of physicians in torture. Perhaps this is because of a widespread sense that torture is so completely antithetical to medical ethics as to require no discussion. Doctors who torture or otherwise contribute in deliberately harming individuals would then be so beyond the pale as not even to require reasoned criticism. However, the literature is not uniformly opposed to physician participation. Gary Jones (1980) explicitly argues for doctor participation in torture when states of emergency exist and no other effective means are available to resolve the crisis. Because effectiveness in crisis resolution is crucial and because effective torture requires medical involvement, clinical and research resources are needed to increase the likelihood of success. More recently, Michael Gross (2004) argues that physicians have a civic duty to aid their security forces in the interrogation of certain suspects.

U2 - 10.1007/978-1-4020-6912-3_7

DO - 10.1007/978-1-4020-6912-3_7

M3 - Chapter

SN - 978-1-4020-6911-6

SP - 105

EP - 125

BT - Physicians at War

A2 - Allhoff, Fritz

PB - Springer

CY - Dordrecht

ER -

Matthews RS. Indecent medicine revisited: Considering physician involvement in torture. In Allhoff F, editor, Physicians at War: The Dual-Loyalties Challenge. Dordrecht: Springer. 2008. p. 105-125 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6912-3_7