Matthews Richard S
Mount Allison University.
Am J Bioeth. 2006 May-Jun;6(3):W34-44. doi: 10.1080/15265160600686372.
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.
在最近的一篇文章中，格罗斯（2004年）认为，在体面的社会中，医生有公民义务在紧急情况下协助审讯疑似恐怖分子。这一论点预设了一个社群主义社会，在这个社会中，共同利益的考量优先于个人权利问题，但它也是功利主义的。如果存在定时炸弹且没有其他拆除方法，就必须使用酷刑，医生必须发挥他们的作用。在更早的一篇文章中，琼斯（1980年）也主张医生参与酷刑，甚至积极支持分配研究资源，以确保应对紧急情况的能力在科学上尽可能高效。我反对这两种观点，并总体上捍卫对酷刑的绝对禁止，尤其反对医生的任何参与。我表明，这些论点与自由或体面的社会不相容，而且使酷刑有效的制度要求将构成对医学伦理与实践以及一般政治制度的不可接受的败坏。
