It is our duty as doctors to reject any attempt to bend our ethical aim to do no harm and to alleviate suffering. We should also actively resist any attempt, however powerful, to corrupt the idea of human dignity.
Prompted by concerns about detainees’ human rights in US military prisons, several medical associations have spoken out in the past month about the role of doctors in interrogation. These statements should bring medical debate on human rights to the forefront—along with news of the deaths of three prisoners in the US base at Guantanamo Bay1
and the recent statement by the Council of Europe Secretary General. This says that “Legislative and administrative measures effectively to protect individuals against violations of human rights committed by agents of foreign security services operating on the territory of member States appear to be the exception rather than the rule.”2
One of the main reasons for reopening the discussion about the duties of health workers in the “war on terror” and its ethical implications is the existence of the so called biscuit teams (behavioural science consultation teams (BSCT)). These teams operate in US military prisons and comprise psychologists, psychiatrists, and other health workers. Last year’s report by Vice Admiral Albert Church III, director of navy staff for the US Department of Defense, on the development, promulgation, and dissemination of interrogation techniques in Guantanamo Bay, Afghanistan, and Iraq acknowleged that biscuit teams assisted in interrogations: “[I]t is a growing trend in the Global War on Terror for behavioral science personnel to work with and support interrogators,” it says. “These personnel observe interrogations, assess detainee behavior and motivations, review interrogation techniques, and offer advice to interrogators. This advice can be effective in helping interrogators collect intelligence from detainees; however, it must be done within proper limits. We found that behavioral science personnel were not involved in detainee medical care (thus avoiding any inherent conflict between caring for detainees and crafting interrogation strategies) nor were they permitted access to detainee medical records… However, since neither the Geneva Convention[s] nor US military medical doctrine specifically addresses the issue of behavioral science personnel assisting interrogators in developing interrogation strategies, this practice has evolved in an ad hoc manner.”3
Biscuit teams’ advice to interrogators should be questioned, given that “the following interrogation techniques were considered by the [US Department of Defense] to be humane and permitted by its interpretation of law: isolation for more than 5 months, sleep deprivation lasting 48 to 54 days during which interrogation took place 18 to 20 hours per day, degradation, sexual humiliation, military dogs to instil fear, and exposure to extremes of heat and cold and loud noise for long periods—and combinations of these techniques.”3,4
Regulations about what is considered “humane” for the Department of Defense may change over time, but it is clear that its criterion for “humanity” has dire ethical flaws.
Fortunately many medical associations are speaking out against these practices. Last month, the World Medical Association (which has more than 80 national medical associations as members) revised its Tokyo declaration on torture by making clear that “The physician shall not countenance, condone or participate in the practice of torture or other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading procedures, whatever the offence of which the victim of such procedures is suspected, accused or guilty, and whatever the victim’s beliefs or motives, and in all situations, including armed conflict and civil strife.”4,5
The basic premise in the association’s statement is simple: “The physician’s fundamental role is to alleviate the distress of his or her fellow human beings, and no motive, whether personal, collective or political, shall prevail against this higher purpose.” No degree of political convenience must be allowed to tamper with this simple but precise definition, and every democratic citizen in the world—not only those who are doctors—should reject any legalistic attempt to justify torture.
The American Medical Association made a long awaited policy statement this month. It said, “Physicians must not conduct, directly participate in, or monitor an interrogation with an intent to intervene, because this undermines the physician’s role as healer.”6
The American Psychiatric Association, too, has just reiterated its position that psychiatrists should not participate in, or otherwise assist or facilitate, the commission of torture of any person and that no psychiatrist should participate directly in the interrogation of persons held in custody by military or civilian investigative or law enforcement authorities, whether in the United States or elsewhere. Direct participation includes being present in the interrogation room, asking or suggesting questions, or advising authorities on the use of specific techniques of interrogation with particular detainees.7
The American Psychiatric Association also says that “psychiatrists who become aware that torture has occurred, is occurring, or has been planned must report it promptly to a person or persons in a position to take corrective action.”
Intellectuals and academics must also take a stand. They need to discuss and debate the “philosophy of torture” (if such a concept exists) and to show its inherent incompatibility with the idea, albeit imperfect, of democracy. The use of euphemisms such as “harsh interrogatory” to describe torture should also be academically discredited, since it contributes to public mystification.8
There is also an urgent need to make clear to all health workers that participation in torture or abuse of prisoners is against the ethical core of healthcare professions. National and international medical codes and covenants on participation in torture or abuse of prisoners are a good starting point, but they are not enough. Health students should be educated explicitly on active engagement with human rights, going beyond simply considering health to be a human right and ensuring abstention from participating in any behaviour which demeans human rights.
Annas and Grodin’s proposal 10 years ago for an international court to judge the behaviour of physicians and other health workers and to keep records on complicity in human rights violations merits further discussion.9
In their words, “the world’s physicians and lawyers should work together to develop and support worldwide mechanisms to articulate and enforce standards of medical ethics and human rights, including the establishment of an international organization dedicated to this cause, and a permanent tribunal with the authority to punish human rights abuses.” An international medical tribunal could initially act by making public statements denouncing doctors who have committed documented violations of human rights, but could also use its influence to urge national medical associations to revoke such doctors’ licence to practise. It would be a demanding task, but it would be worth the international effort to do it.