Select header/footer to go to
Table of Contents
Think
Assess
Patient: Autonomy
Practitioner: Beneficence & Nonmaleficence
Public Policy: Justice
Conclude
1x Speed
2x Speed
27. Interrogation
Select Button
In order to be a good medical practitioner, they must also have a good character, that is to say, whatever weaknesses and foibles they may have, the medical practitioner must love their fellow human beings in the concrete and desire their fellow human beings good before their own.
~ W. H. Auden
Unlawful Secrets
The Consequences of Unlawful Interrogation Practices
It was a typical day at the hospital for Dr. Maria Sanchez, a respected and well-regarded physician in her field. She had just finished a long shift and was eager to go home to her family when her phone rang. It was an urgent call from the hospital administration requesting her presence at a meeting regarding a patient in critical condition.
Dr. Sanchez arrived at the meeting room to find several law enforcement officials present, including a detective who introduced himself as Detective Smith. He explained that they were in need of information from the patient, who was a suspect in an ongoing criminal investigation.
Dr. Sanchez was taken aback by the request. She knew that medical professionals had strict ethical guidelines surrounding interrogation and the principle of patient autonomy. She explained to the detective that as a medical practitioner, she could not conduct, participate, monitor, or even be present during any interrogation.
Detective Smith was frustrated by Dr. Sanchez’s refusal to cooperate. He insisted that time was of the essence and that they needed to extract information from the patient as soon as possible. He argued that they needed to use every means necessary to obtain the information they needed to prevent a potential threat to public safety.
Dr. Sanchez stood firm in her position, emphasizing that the medical profession’s prime directive is to be patient-centered and to maximize the patient’s best interests according to the patient’s reasonable goals, values, and priorities. She stressed that she could not have any association with any activity that promotes physical or psychological harm or compromises public perception of the medical profession.
Detective Smith left the meeting, frustrated and angry. Later that night, Dr. Sanchez received a threatening phone call warning her to keep quiet about the interrogation request or face serious consequences. Dr. Sanchez was shaken but remained resolute in her commitment to upholding the principles of her profession.
The next morning, the hospital was in chaos. The patient in question had been murdered, and Detective Smith was found dead in his office, the victim of an apparent homicide. The investigation led to the discovery of a conspiracy involving law enforcement officials who were involved in illegal interrogation techniques that violated human rights and dignity.
Dr. Sanchez was interviewed as a witness in the investigation and provided crucial information that led to the arrest and conviction of those involved in the conspiracy. The case became a landmark example of the importance of upholding ethical principles in the medical profession, particularly regarding interrogation practices.
Dr. Sanchez became an advocate for educating healthcare providers on the ethical considerations of interrogation, emphasizing the importance of patient autonomy, nonmaleficence, beneficence, and justice. She became a vocal supporter of those who were subjected to abusive and coercive interrogation techniques and worked tirelessly to promote public awareness of the issue.
The tragic events that transpired at the hospital were a reminder of the importance of staying true to one’s professional obligations and the crucial role that medical professionals play in upholding ethical standards in society.
Abstract
There are significant ethical considerations regarding interrogation practices, particularly as it pertains to medical professionals. Interrogation violates the principle of patient autonomy as it is not a decisional choice for the person being questioned. The medical practitioner is bound by the professional principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence along with the obligation to maximize the patient’s best interests, making it imperative that practitioners not participate in or associate with any activities that promote physical or psychological harm. The use of lies, false evidence, and manipulation in interrogation also violates human dignity and rights, calling into question the justice of such practices. The practitioner is obligated to oppose, expose and report any abusive or coercive interrogations to relevant authorities.
**
Think
[27:1] Interrogation is the questioning of a person to gain information or intelligence for law enforcement, military, or national security and is generally limited to no more than 8 hours per day. However, one study of 44 confession cases noted that the average length of interrogation was 16.3 hours.
[27:2] The interrogation method used by police throughout the United States is the Reid technique. It was developed in the 1950s by John Reid, a psychologist, polygraph expert, and Chicago police officer. With the Reid technique, the investigator introduces fictitious evidence and lies to the suspect being interrogated, saying that the investigation has turned up direct evidence of the suspect committing the crime in question, such as fingerprints, witnesses who have identified them to the crime, thus creating a very stressful environment. The interrogator then follows up, showing sympathy, understanding, and promising leniency and help, but only if they confess. The Reid technique has resulted in many false confessions, especially among youth and the mentally vulnerable, giving Illinois the name “False Confession Capital of the United States” by the Innocence Project. Because of Illinois’s large number of wrongful convictions predicated on false confessions, the damage of public perception and the high costs associated with incarcerations and exonerations, in July 2021, Illinois became the first state to make it illegal for police officers to lie to children during interrogations. However, the law still permits interrogators to use fictitious evidence and to lie when interrogating adults.
[27:3] The United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), in addition to using fictitious evidence and lying, took the Reid technique of creating a stressful environment up a few notches by including waterboarding and defined it as “enhanced interrogation”. Waterboarding is strapping a victim to a board on their back with the head lower than the rest of their body. Water is poured over a cloth covering the face giving the person being interrogated the experience of drowning. Using this enhanced interrogation method, the interrogator can extract from the person nearly any confession they want. This technique has had very little success other than creating a plethora of false confessions and false intelligence, as the victim will say nearly anything to have the abuse stop. The false confessions of weapons of mass destruction were one of many consequences of such interrogations methods resulting in 800,000 to 1.3 million Iraqi deaths, destruction of a civilization, and destabilization of the Middle East.
Assess
Patient: 1) Autonomy
[27:4] Concerning the principle of autonomy, the person being interrogated does not have a decisional choice and is therefore not acting autonomously. The information given to the interrogated person is often lies or false criminal accusations combined with the false hope of leniency in exchange for confessing. Coercion and manipulation of information make autonomy impossible as every element of the necessary conditions for informed consent is violated.
Practitioner: 2) Beneficence & 3) Nonmaleficence
[27:5] The practitioner, as a medical professional, must not conduct, participate, monitor, or even be present during any interrogation as a matter of nonmaleficence (do no harm) and the public perception of the profession. The medical professional’s role is to pursue the patient’s best interests, as determined by the patient’s reasonable goals, values, and priorities. This is certainly not what is happening with involuntary interrogation, where there is no relationship towards healing, nor does interrogation focus on maximizing the person’s best interests. Because of this, it is incumbent upon the practitioner not to participate in any interrogation activities that violate the medical profession’s patient-centered focus. The practitioner also has a professional, legal, and moral obligation to oppose, expose and report any abusive or coercive interrogations to authorities that have the power to intervene, investigate, and adjudicate.
Public Policy: 4) Justice
[27:6] As a matter of justice (be fair), it is hard to understand why the law permits interrogation strategies and techniques that violate human dignity and human rights by allowing outright lying, fabrication of evidence, and threatening environments both physically and mentally. One might try to justify such interrogation techniques by their positive outcomes with true confessions and valuable intelligence necessary to protect individuals and society. However, so far, the evidence shows that torture and enhanced interrogation are less effective than non-coercive interrogation methods because the victims will confess to anything they believe the interrogators want to hear in order to stop the torture and interrogation.
Conclude
[27:7] The practitioner’s and the medical profession’s prime directive is to be patient-centered with the function of maximizing the patient’s best interests according to the patient’s reasonable goals, values, and priorities. Because of this prime directive, practitioners are to have no association with any activity that promotes physical or psychological harm to a person and no association with any activity that compromises the public’s perception of the medical profession as a healing art. Practitioners have a professional, legal, and moral obligation to oppose, expose and report any abusive or coercive interrogations to authorities that have the power to intervene, investigate, and adjudicate.
[27:8] In summary, medical practitioners must prioritize patient-centered care and the maximization of the patient’s best interests. As such, they should not participate in or associate with activities that promote physical or psychological harm or compromise public perception of the medical profession. Practitioners have a professional, legal, and moral obligation to oppose, expose, and report any abusive or coercive interrogations to authorities with the power to intervene, investigate, and adjudicate. Upholding these obligations is essential for maintaining the integrity of the medical profession and protecting the well-being of individuals subjected to interrogation.
(See also: 5. Assisted Suicide, 6. Capital Punishment - Executions, 11. Death With Dignity - Practitioner-Assisted Dying, 17. Euthanasia, and 58. Torture)
**
27. Review Questions
1. With the Reid technique, the investigator introduces fictitious evidence and lies to the suspect being interrogated, saying that the investigation has turned up direct evidence of the suspect committing the crime in question, such as fingerprints, witnesses who have identified them to the crime, and creating a very stressful environment.
2. The Reid technique has resulted in many false confessions, especially among youth and the mentally vulnerable, giving Illinois the name “False Confession Capital of the United States” by the Innocence Project.
3. The information given to the interrogated person is often lies or false criminal accusations combined with the false hope of leniency in exchange for confessing. Coercion and manipulation of information make autonomy impossible as every element of the necessary conditions for informed consent is violated.
4. The practitioner, as a medical professional, can be present during interrogation as long as it is for beneficence (do good).
5. The practitioner also has a professional, legal, and moral obligation to report any abusive or coercive interrogations to authorities that have the power to intervene, investigate, and adjudicate such activities.
6. Since torture and enhanced interrogation are more effective at getting true confessions than non-coercive methods, it is morally permissible for practitioner to participate.
**
CORRECT! 🙂
[27:2] The interrogation method used by police throughout the United States is the Reid technique. It was developed in the 1950s by John Reid, a psychologist, polygraph expert, and Chicago police officer. With the Reid technique, the investigator introduces fictitious evidence and lies to the suspect being interrogated, saying that the investigation has turned up direct evidence of the suspect committing the crime in question, such as fingerprints, witnesses who have identified them to the crime, and creating a very stressful environment. The interrogator then follows up, showing sympathy, understanding, and promising leniency and help, but only if they confess. The Reid technique has resulted in many false confessions, especially among youth and the mentally vulnerable, giving Illinois the name “False Confession Capital of the United States” by the Innocence Project. Because of Illinois’s large number of wrongful convictions predicated on false confessions, the damage of public perception, and the high costs associated with incarcerations and exonerations, in July 2021, Illinois became the first state to make it illegal for police officers to lie to children during interrogations. However, the law still permits interrogators to use fictitious evidence and to lie when interrogating adults.
Wrong 😕
[27:2] The interrogation method used by police throughout the United States is the Reid technique. It was developed in the 1950s by John Reid, a psychologist, polygraph expert, and Chicago police officer. With the Reid technique, the investigator introduces fictitious evidence and lies to the suspect being interrogated, saying that the investigation has turned up direct evidence of the suspect committing the crime in question, such as fingerprints, witnesses who have identified them to the crime, and creating a very stressful environment. The interrogator then follows up, showing sympathy, understanding, and promising leniency and help, but only if they confess. The Reid technique has resulted in many false confessions, especially among youth and the mentally vulnerable, giving Illinois the name “False Confession Capital of the United States” by the Innocence Project. Because of Illinois’s large number of wrongful convictions predicated on false confessions, the damage of public perception, and the high costs associated with incarcerations and exonerations, in July 2021, Illinois became the first state to make it illegal for police officers to lie to children during interrogations. However, the law still permits interrogators to use fictitious evidence and to lie when interrogating adults.
CORRECT! 🙂
[27:2] The interrogation method used by police throughout the United States is the Reid technique. It was developed in the 1950s by John Reid, a psychologist, polygraph expert, and Chicago police officer. With the Reid technique, the investigator introduces fictitious evidence and lies to the suspect being interrogated, saying that the investigation has turned up direct evidence of the suspect committing the crime in question, such as fingerprints, witnesses who have identified them to the crime, and creating a very stressful environment. The interrogator then follows up, showing sympathy, understanding, and promising leniency and help, but only if they confess. The Reid technique has resulted in many false confessions, especially among youth and the mentally vulnerable, giving Illinois the name “False Confession Capital of the United States” by the Innocence Project. Because of Illinois’s large number of wrongful convictions predicated on false confessions, the damage of public perception, and the high costs associated with incarcerations and exonerations, in July 2021, Illinois became the first state to make it illegal for police officers to lie to children during interrogations. However, the law still permits interrogators to use fictitious evidence and to lie when interrogating adults.
Wrong 😕
[27:2] The interrogation method used by police throughout the United States is the Reid technique. It was developed in the 1950s by John Reid, a psychologist, polygraph expert, and Chicago police officer. With the Reid technique, the investigator introduces fictitious evidence and lies to the suspect being interrogated, saying that the investigation has turned up direct evidence of the suspect committing the crime in question, such as fingerprints, witnesses who have identified them to the crime, and creating a very stressful environment. The interrogator then follows up, showing sympathy, understanding, and promising leniency and help, but only if they confess. The Reid technique has resulted in many false confessions, especially among youth and the mentally vulnerable, giving Illinois the name “False Confession Capital of the United States” by the Innocence Project. Because of Illinois’s large number of wrongful convictions predicated on false confessions, the damage of public perception, and the high costs associated with incarcerations and exonerations, in July 2021, Illinois became the first state to make it illegal for police officers to lie to children during interrogations. However, the law still permits interrogators to use fictitious evidence and to lie when interrogating adults.
CORRECT! 🙂
[27:4] Concerning the principle of autonomy, the person being interrogated does not have a decisional choice and is therefore not acting autonomously. The information given to the interrogated person is often lies or false criminal accusations combined with the false hope of leniency in exchange for confessing. Coercion and manipulation of information make autonomy impossible as every element of the necessary conditions for informed consent is violated.
Wrong 😕
[27:4] Concerning the principle of autonomy, the person being interrogated does not have a decisional choice and is therefore not acting autonomously. The information given to the interrogated person is often lies or false criminal accusations combined with the false hope of leniency in exchange for confessing. Coercion and manipulation of information make autonomy impossible as every element of the necessary conditions for informed consent is violated.
CORRECT! 🙂
[27:5] The practitioner, as a medical professional, must not conduct, participate, monitor, or even be present during any interrogation as a matter of nonmaleficence (do no harm) and the public perception of the profession. The medical professional’s role is to pursue the patient’s best interests, as determined by the patient’s reasonable goals, values, and priorities. This is certainly not what is happening with involuntary interrogation, where there is no relationship towards healing, nor does interrogation focus on maximizing the person’s best interests. Because of this, it is incumbent upon the practitioner not to participate in any interrogation activities that violate the medical profession’s patient-centered focus. The practitioner also has a professional, legal, and moral obligation to oppose, expose and report any abusive or coercive interrogations to authorities that have the power to intervene, investigate, and adjudicate.
Wrong 😕
[27:5] The practitioner, as a medical professional, must not conduct, participate, monitor, or even be present during any interrogation as a matter of nonmaleficence (do no harm) and the public perception of the profession. The medical professional’s role is to pursue the patient’s best interests, as determined by the patient’s reasonable goals, values, and priorities. This is certainly not what is happening with involuntary interrogation, where there is no relationship towards healing, nor does interrogation focus on maximizing the person’s best interests. Because of this, it is incumbent upon the practitioner not to participate in any interrogation activities that violate the medical profession’s patient-centered focus. The practitioner also has a professional, legal, and moral obligation to oppose, expose and report any abusive or coercive interrogations to authorities that have the power to intervene, investigate, and adjudicate.
CORRECT! 🙂
[27:5] The practitioner, as a medical professional, must not conduct, participate, monitor, or even be present during any interrogation as a matter of nonmaleficence (do no harm) and the public perception of the profession. The medical professional’s role is to pursue the patient’s best interests, as determined by the patient’s reasonable goals, values, and priorities. This is certainly not what is happening with involuntary interrogation, where there is no relationship towards healing, nor does interrogation focus on maximizing the person’s best interests. Because of this, it is incumbent upon the practitioner not to participate in any interrogation activities that violate the medical profession’s patient-centered focus. The practitioner also has a professional, legal, and moral obligation to oppose, expose and report any abusive or coercive interrogations to authorities that have the power to intervene, investigate, and adjudicate.
Wrong 😕
[27:5] The practitioner, as a medical professional, must not conduct, participate, monitor, or even be present during any interrogation as a matter of nonmaleficence (do no harm) and the public perception of the profession. The medical professional’s role is to pursue the patient’s best interests, as determined by the patient’s reasonable goals, values, and priorities. This is certainly not what is happening with involuntary interrogation, where there is no relationship towards healing, nor does interrogation focus on maximizing the person’s best interests. Because of this, it is incumbent upon the practitioner not to participate in any interrogation activities that violate the medical profession’s patient-centered focus. The practitioner also has a professional, legal, and moral obligation to oppose, expose and report any abusive or coercive interrogations to authorities that have the power to intervene, investigate, and adjudicate.
CORRECT! 🙂
[27:6] As a matter of justice (be fair), it is hard to understand why the law permits interrogation strategies and techniques that violate human dignity and human rights by allowing outright lying, fabrication of evidence, and threatening environments both physically and mentally. One might try to justify such interrogation techniques by their positive outcomes with true confessions and valuable intelligence necessary to protect individuals and society. However, so far, the evidence shows that torture and enhanced interrogation are less effective than non-coercive interrogation methods because the victims will confess to anything they believe the interrogators want to hear in order to stop the torture and interrogation.
Wrong 😕
[27:6] As a matter of justice (be fair), it is hard to understand why the law permits interrogation strategies and techniques that violate human dignity and human rights by allowing outright lying, fabrication of evidence, and threatening environments both physically and mentally. One might try to justify such interrogation techniques by their positive outcomes with true confessions and valuable intelligence necessary to protect individuals and society. However, so far, the evidence shows that torture and enhanced interrogation are less effective than non-coercive interrogation methods because the victims will confess to anything they believe the interrogators want to hear in order to stop the torture and interrogation.
27. Clinical Vignettes
1. Ms. Bridget Thompson is a 24-year-old college student who was brought into the police station for questioning in regards to a robbery that took place in a nearby store. During the interrogation, the investigator used the Reid technique, telling Ms. Thompson that they had evidence linking her to the crime and pressuring her to confess. Ms. Thompson eventually confessed to the crime, but later recanted her confession, stating that she only confessed because she was afraid and felt that she had no other choice. Clinical differential diagnoses for Ms. Thompson's symptoms may include anxiety disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), or acute stress disorder (ASD). The ethical question arising from this clinical vignette is whether the investigator's use of the Reid technique in interrogating Ms. Thompson violated her autonomy and dignity as a person.
2. Mr. Edmond Lee is a 38-year-old former CIA agent who was involved in the use of waterboarding during interrogations of suspected terrorists. Since retiring from the agency, Mr. Lee has experienced symptoms of anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Clinical differential diagnoses may include PTSD, anxiety disorder, or major depressive disorder. The ethical question arising from this clinical vignette is whether the use of waterboarding during interrogation violates the principle of nonmaleficence and the dignity of human beings.
3. Dr. Nathanial Park is a 30-year-old practitioner who received a request from a government official to provide medical assistance during an interrogation of a suspected criminal. The official tells him that the suspect has been injured during his arrest and needs medical attention, and that his role would be to provide medical care to the suspect during the interrogation. What ethical obligation does Dr. Park have as a medical professional in this situation?
4. Dr. Penelope Woods is a practitioner who works at a police department as a medical examiner. One day, she is asked to conduct a medical examination on a suspect who was arrested for a serious crime. During the examination, the suspect tells Dr. Woods that he was subjected to physical abuse by the arresting officers. What is Dr. Woods's ethical obligation as a healthcare practitioner in this situation?
5. Dr. Heather Nguyen is a psychiatrist who works at a detention center that houses immigrants who are awaiting deportation. One day, she is approached by an immigration officer who asks her to participate in the interrogation of a detainee who is suspected of having mental health issues. The officer tells Dr. Nguyen that her role would be to assess the detainee's mental health and provide recommendations for interrogation techniques that would not exacerbate the detainee's symptoms. What is Dr. Nguyen's ethical obligation as a healthcare practitioner in this situation?
CORRECT! 🙂
Explanation: The use of the Reid technique in interrogation violates the principle of patient autonomy as the person being interrogated does not have a decisional choice and is therefore not acting autonomously [27:4]. Additionally, the use of lies, false evidence, and manipulation in interrogation violates human dignity and rights, calling into question the justice of such practices [27:1]. In this clinical vignette, Ms. Thompson only confessed due to the pressure put on her by the investigator, and later recanted her confession, suggesting that her autonomy was violated. The practitioner, as a medical professional, must not participate, monitor, or even be present during any interrogation as a matter of nonmaleficence (do no harm) and the public perception of the profession [27:5]. The practitioner also has a professional, legal, and moral obligation to oppose, expose and report any abusive or coercive interrogations to authorities that have the power to intervene, investigate, and adjudicate [27:5].
Wrong 😕
Explanation: The use of the Reid technique in interrogation violates the principle of patient autonomy as the person being interrogated does not have a decisional choice and is therefore not acting autonomously [27:4]. Additionally, the use of lies, false evidence, and manipulation in interrogation violates human dignity and rights, calling into question the justice of such practices [27:1]. In this clinical vignette, Ms. Thompson only confessed due to the pressure put on her by the investigator, and later recanted her confession, suggesting that her autonomy was violated. The practitioner, as a medical professional, must not participate, monitor, or even be present during any interrogation as a matter of nonmaleficence (do no harm) and the public perception of the profession [27:5]. The practitioner also has a professional, legal, and moral obligation to oppose, expose and report any abusive or coercive interrogations to authorities that have the power to intervene, investigate, and adjudicate [27:5].
CORRECT! 🙂
Explanation: The use of waterboarding during interrogation violates the principle of nonmaleficence, which requires that medical professionals do no harm to their patients [27:5]. The use of such enhanced interrogation techniques promotes physical and psychological harm to individuals and violates the dignity of human beings [27:1]. The evidence shows that torture and enhanced interrogation are less effective than non-coercive interrogation methods because the victims will confess to anything they believe the interrogators want to hear in order to stop the torture and interrogation [27:6]. Mr. Lee's symptoms of anxiety, depression, and PTSD may have resulted from his participation in these interrogation practices. As a medical professional, it is incumbent upon the practitioner not to participate in any interrogation activities that violate the medical profession’s patient-centered focus [27:5].
Wrong 😕
Explanation: The use of waterboarding during interrogation violates the principle of nonmaleficence, which requires that medical professionals do no harm to their patients [27:5]. The use of such enhanced interrogation techniques promotes physical and psychological harm to individuals and violates the dignity of human beings [27:1]. The evidence shows that torture and enhanced interrogation are less effective than non-coercive interrogation methods because the victims will confess to anything they believe the interrogators want to hear in order to stop the torture and interrogation [27:6]. Mr. Lee's symptoms of anxiety, depression, and PTSD may have resulted from his participation in these interrogation practices. As a medical professional, it is incumbent upon the practitioner not to participate in any interrogation activities that violate the medical profession’s patient-centered focus [27:5].
CORRECT! 🙂
Explanation:Dr. Park's ethical obligation as a medical professional is to pursue the patient's best interests, as determined by the patient's reasonable goals, values, and priorities [27:5]. In this case, he is being asked to participate in an interrogation that does not focus on maximizing the person's best interests, but rather is aimed at obtaining information through coercion and manipulation [27:1]. As a matter of nonmaleficence and the public perception of the profession, he must not conduct, participate, monitor, or even be present during any interrogation that violates the medical profession's patient-centered focus [27:5]. Dr. Park has a professional, legal, and moral obligation to oppose, expose, and report any abusive or coercive interrogations to authorities that have the power to intervene, investigate, and adjudicate [27:5]. Therefore, his ethical obligation in this situation is to report the request to his supervisor and the relevant authorities [27:5].
Wrong 😕
Explanation:Dr. Park's ethical obligation as a medical professional is to pursue the patient's best interests, as determined by the patient's reasonable goals, values, and priorities [27:5]. In this case, he is being asked to participate in an interrogation that does not focus on maximizing the person's best interests, but rather is aimed at obtaining information through coercion and manipulation [27:1]. As a matter of nonmaleficence and the public perception of the profession, he must not conduct, participate, monitor, or even be present during any interrogation that violates the medical profession's patient-centered focus [27:5]. Dr. Park has a professional, legal, and moral obligation to oppose, expose, and report any abusive or coercive interrogations to authorities that have the power to intervene, investigate, and adjudicate [27:5]. Therefore, his ethical obligation in this situation is to report the request to his supervisor and the relevant authorities [27:5].
CORRECT! 🙂
Explanation: Dr. Woods's ethical obligation as a healthcare practitioner is to oppose, expose, and report any abusive or coercive interrogations to authorities that have the power to intervene, investigate, and adjudicate [27:2]. In this case, she is being made aware of allegations of physical abuse by the arresting officers, which constitutes abusive or coercive behavior [27:2]. As a medical examiner, Dr. Woods has a professional, legal, and moral obligation to report any such claims to her supervisor and the relevant authorities, such as internal affairs or the police department's oversight board [27:2]. Failure to report such claims could result in the continuation of abusive or coercive behavior, which is in direct violation of the medical profession's commitment to patient-centered care and the obligation to do no harm [27:5]. Furthermore, the reporting of such claims is in line with the principle of justice, as it ensures that those responsible for abusive or coercive behavior are held accountable for their actions [27:6]. Therefore, Dr. Woods's ethical obligation in this situation is to report the suspect's claims to her supervisor and the relevant authorities [27:2].
Wrong 😕
Explanation: Dr. Woods's ethical obligation as a healthcare practitioner is to oppose, expose, and report any abusive or coercive interrogations to authorities that have the power to intervene, investigate, and adjudicate [27:2]. In this case, she is being made aware of allegations of physical abuse by the arresting officers, which constitutes abusive or coercive behavior [27:2]. As a medical examiner, Dr. Woods has a professional, legal, and moral obligation to report any such claims to her supervisor and the relevant authorities, such as internal affairs or the police department's oversight board [27:2]. Failure to report such claims could result in the continuation of abusive or coercive behavior, which is in direct violation of the medical profession's commitment to patient-centered care and the obligation to do no harm [27:5]. Furthermore, the reporting of such claims is in line with the principle of justice, as it ensures that those responsible for abusive or coercive behavior are held accountable for their actions [27:6]. Therefore, Dr. Woods's ethical obligation in this situation is to report the suspect's claims to her supervisor and the relevant authorities [27:2].
CORRECT! 🙂
Explanation: Dr. Nguyen's ethical obligation as a healthcare practitioner is to pursue the patient's best interests, as determined by the patient's reasonable goals, values, and priorities [27:5]. In this case, she is being asked to participate in an interrogation that does not focus on maximizing the person's best interests, but rather is aimed at obtaining information through coercion and manipulation [27:1]. The involvement of healthcare practitioners in interrogation practices also violates the principle of patient autonomy, as it is not a decisional choice for the person being questioned [27:1][27:4]. Furthermore, the use of mental health assessments to facilitate interrogation techniques raises concerns about professional boundaries and the ethical use of psychiatric expertise [27:5]. Therefore, as a matter of nonmaleficence, patient confidentiality, and the public perception of the profession, Dr. Nguyen must not conduct, participate, monitor, or even be present during any interrogation that violates the medical profession's patient-centered focus [27:5]. Dr. Nguyen has a professional, legal, and moral obligation to oppose, expose, and report any abusive or coercive interrogations to authorities that have the power to intervene, investigate, and adjudicate [27:5][27:6]. Her ethical obligation in this situation is to refuse the request and not be involved in the interrogation.
Wrong 😕
Explanation: Dr. Nguyen's ethical obligation as a healthcare practitioner is to pursue the patient's best interests, as determined by the patient's reasonable goals, values, and priorities [27:5]. In this case, she is being asked to participate in an interrogation that does not focus on maximizing the person's best interests, but rather is aimed at obtaining information through coercion and manipulation [27:1]. The involvement of healthcare practitioners in interrogation practices also violates the principle of patient autonomy, as it is not a decisional choice for the person being questioned [27:1][27:4]. Furthermore, the use of mental health assessments to facilitate interrogation techniques raises concerns about professional boundaries and the ethical use of psychiatric expertise [27:5]. Therefore, as a matter of nonmaleficence, patient confidentiality, and the public perception of the profession, Dr. Nguyen must not conduct, participate, monitor, or even be present during any interrogation that violates the medical profession's patient-centered focus [27:5]. Dr. Nguyen has a professional, legal, and moral obligation to oppose, expose, and report any abusive or coercive interrogations to authorities that have the power to intervene, investigate, and adjudicate [27:5][27:6]. Her ethical obligation in this situation is to refuse the request and not be involved in the interrogation.
**
27. Reflection Vignettes
1. Dr. Sarah Patel, a 35-year-old physician, is serving as a medical practitioner in the military. One day, her commanding officer asks her to provide a blood transfusion to a prisoner being interrogated so that the interrogation can continue. The differential diagnosis includes ethical and legal considerations related to medical treatment of prisoners and potential violations of medical ethics and human rights. Ms. Patel recognizes the importance of upholding ethical and professional standards, even in the military, and refuses the request. She cites medical ethics guidelines and the ethical principle of nonmaleficence, which emphasizes the importance of doing no harm to patients. She also emphasizes the importance of informed consent and ensuring that medical treatment is provided solely for the benefit of the patient's health and wellbeing, rather than for other purposes such as interrogation.
Think
Assess
Patient: Autonomy
Practitioner: Beneficence & Nonmaleficence
Public Policy: Justice
Conclude
**
2. Mr. John Kim, a 40-year-old physician, is asked to be present during an enhanced interrogation procedure to ensure that the prisoner does not die. The differential diagnosis includes ethical and legal considerations related to participation in torture and other forms of cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment or punishment. Mr. Kim recognizes that participation in such procedures is a violation of medical ethics and human rights, and he refuses the request. He cites medical ethics guidelines and the ethical principle of beneficence, which emphasizes the importance of doing good for patients and avoiding harm. He also emphasizes the importance of upholding ethical and professional standards, even in high-pressure situations, and avoiding participation in activities that violate medical ethics and human rights.
Think
Assess
Patient: Autonomy
Practitioner: Beneficence & Nonmaleficence
Public Policy: Justice
Conclude
***
