Suppr超能文献

美国医生与“反恐战争”中的双重忠诚义务。

American physicians and dual loyalty obligations in the "war on terror".

作者信息

Singh Jerome Amir

机构信息

Howard College School of Law, King George V Ave, University of Natal, Durban, 4041, South Africa.

出版信息

BMC Med Ethics. 2003 Aug 1;4:E4. doi: 10.1186/1472-6939-4-4.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Post-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.

DISCUSSION

This 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".

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.

摘要

背景

2001年9月11日之后,美国政府将数千名阿富汗战争被拘留者列为“非法战斗人员”。这一标签实际上剥夺了这些被拘留者根据国际人道主义法本应作为“战俘”获得的保护。有报道称,在美国境外的秘密军事设施中被关押的数千名被拘留者正遭受美国当局可疑的“压力和胁迫”审讯策略。如果情况属实,美国军方医生可能会在不经意间成为被拘留者虐待行为的同谋。此外,美国政府对这类被拘留者公开持否定态度,可能导致军方医生尽管有道德义务为被拘留者提供合理治疗,但却不愿这么做。

讨论

本文根据国际人道主义法和医学伦理的相关文书,评估医生治疗战争被拘留者的义务。简要概述了种族隔离时期的南非,当国家医生在道德上背离被拘留者患者的利益时,被拘留者虐待行为是如何泛滥的。我告诫美国医生不要重蹈覆辙。我敦促美国医学界在美国为被拘留者的权利发声,无论被拘留者来自何种政治文化背景。我为面临“反恐战争”中双重忠诚利益冲突的美国医生提供建议。

总结

如果美国医生在遵循国家政策还是国际人道主义法及医学伦理原则之间面临利益冲突,那么在治疗战争被拘留者时,他们应选择坚持后者。美国医学界公开反对美国政府可能出现的被拘留者虐待行为非常重要。

相似文献

引用本文的文献

1
Thematic Analysis of Military Medical Ethics Publications From 2000 to 2020-A Bibliometric Approach.
Mil Med. 2022 Jul 1;187(7-8):e837-e845. doi: 10.1093/milmed/usab317.
2
Why Did U.S. Healthcare Professionals Become Involved in Torture During the War on Terror?
J Bioeth Inq. 2016 Sep;13(3):449-60. doi: 10.1007/s11673-016-9729-x. Epub 2016 Jun 16.
3
The Importance of Military Cultural Competence.
Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2016 Mar;18(3):26. doi: 10.1007/s11920-016-0662-9.
4
Physician involvement in torture: an ethical perspective.
J Med Humanit. 2013 Mar;34(1):59-71. doi: 10.1007/s10912-012-9197-1.
5
Dual loyalty of physicians in the military and in civilian life.
Am J Public Health. 2008 Dec;98(12):2161-7. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2007.124644. Epub 2008 Oct 15.
7
Achieving gold standards in ethics and human rights in medical practice.
PLoS Med. 2005 Aug;2(8):e260. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020260. Epub 2005 Jul 19.

本文引用的文献

1
Fighting "terrorism" with torture.
BMJ. 2003 Apr 12;326(7393):773-4. doi: 10.1136/bmj.326.7393.773.
2
Clinical loyalties and the social purposes of medicine.
JAMA. 1999 Jan 20;281(3):268-74. doi: 10.1001/jama.281.3.268.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验