Select header/footer to go to
Table of Contents
Think
Assess
Patient: Autonomy
Practitioner: Beneficence & Nonmaleficence
Public Policy: Justice
Conclude
1x Speed
2x Speed
58. Torture
Select Button
[As a medical practitioner] I will follow that system of regimen which, according to my ability and judgment, I consider for the benefit of my patients, and abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous.
~ Hippocrates
Torture's Betrayal
The Prohibition of Torture and Healthcare Providers’ Responsibilities
It was a gruesome scene that greeted Dr. Sarah Patel when she arrived at the hospital that day. The patient in room 305 was covered in bruises, cuts, and burns, his body wracked with pain. It was clear that he had been tortured. As the head of the hospital’s Ethics Committee, Dr. Patel knew that she had to act quickly to investigate what had happened.
She called in the hospital’s security team to review the surveillance footage from the past few days. What they found was shocking. The patient had been brought in by the police after being arrested on suspicion of terrorism. The police had used enhanced interrogation techniques to extract information from him. The hospital staff had been complicit in the torture, providing medical care to the patient so that he could be returned to the interrogation room and tortured again.
Dr. Patel was horrified. The medical profession had a strict prohibition on any association with torture or enhanced interrogation techniques. Practitioners had a professional, legal, and moral obligation to oppose, expose, and report these practices, and to not participate in them in any way. The principles of autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice, as well as patient-centered healthcare, dictated that practitioners must never cross the boundary of participating in torture or enhanced interrogation.
Dr. Patel called an emergency meeting of the Ethics Committee, and they quickly determined that the hospital staff involved in the torture would be reported to the proper authorities. They also discussed the steps that the hospital could take to ensure that this never happened again.
The hospital immediately instituted a new policy, mandating that all hospital staff receive training on the prohibition of torture and enhanced interrogation techniques. They also implemented stricter protocols for reporting any suspected cases of torture, with mandatory reporting to the Ethics Committee and outside authorities.
Dr. Patel knew that this was just the beginning of a long and difficult journey. The medical profession held practitioners accountable for reporting abuse, including in legal war zones or under the orders of superiors. Practitioners had a legal obligation to report possible torture as a violation of human rights. Failure to report abuse was considered the same as failure to report child or elder abuse and could result in legal liability.
The medical profession would never deviate from its stance against torture or enhanced interrogation techniques. As protectors of human rights and providers of patient-centered healthcare, practitioners must always work to ensure the well-being of those in their care, including those who have suffered from torture. Dr. Patel was committed to upholding these principles and ensuring that the hospital staff did the same.
Abstract
The medical profession prohibits any association with torture or enhanced interrogation techniques. Practitioners have a professional, legal, and moral obligation to oppose, expose, and report these practices, and to not participate in them in any way. The principles of autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice, as well as patient-centered healthcare, dictate that practitioners must never cross the boundary of participating in torture or enhanced interrogation. Practitioners must treat those who have been injured by torture, but must not do so in a manner that allows for further torture to occur. The medical profession holds practitioners accountable for reporting abuse, including in legal war zones or under the orders of superiors. Practitioners have a legal obligation to report possible torture as a violation of human rights. Failure to report abuse is considered the same as failure to report child or elder abuse and can result in legal liability. The medical profession will never deviate from its stance against torture or enhanced interrogation techniques.
**
Think
[58:1] Medical practitioners must never participate to any degree in torture or enhanced interrogations, and the practitioner has a professional, legal, and moral duty to oppose, expose, and report torture or enhanced interrogations.
[58:2] The American College of Physicians (ACP) Ethics Manual states:
Physicians [Practitioners] must not be a party to and must speak out against torture or other abuses of human rights.
[58:3] The American Medical Association (AMA) Code of Medical Ethics 9.7.5 states:
Physicians [Practitioners] must oppose and must not participate in torture for any reason. … Physicians [practitioners] must not be present when torture is used or threatened.
[58:4] Torture and enhanced interrogation are in total contradiction with the medical profession’s directive of maximizing the patient’s best interests, using the biomedical principles of autonomy (informed consent), beneficence (do good), nonmaleficence (do no harm), and justice (be fair).
[58.5] The medical profession has several boundaries that the practitioner must never cross because of the nature of the patient-practitioner relationship, patient-centered health care, and the principles of biomedical ethics. Torture and enhanced interrogation are beyond this boundary.
Assess
Patient: 1) Autonomy
[58:6] Torture, by definition, is incompatible with autonomy and informed consent. Torture or enhanced interrogation techniques are not for the tortured person’s best interests, and therefore the autonomous informed consent process cannot commence, nor has the victim and practitioner established a patient-practitioner relationship.
Practitioner: 2) Beneficence & 3) Nonmaleficence
[58:7] Torture and enhanced interrogation practices are prohibited as a violation of the professional principle of beneficence (do good) and the professional principle of nonmaleficence (do no harm).
[58:8] Practitioners may use the professional principle of beneficence (do good) as the basis for treating those who have been injured by torture. However, no treatment ought to ever be provided for the person to recover enough so that they can withstand more torture, as that would be a violation of the professional principle of nonmaleficence (do no harm).
[58:9] These prohibitions and duties to report and oppose torture include practitioners in legal war zones and under the direct orders of military superiors. “I was only following orders” is no justification for participation. As a matter of nonmaleficence (do no harm), it is always professionally unethical for a practitioner to purposefully participate in a person’s physical or psychological harm regardless of who orders it or what court of law legally mandates it.
[58:10] Not only is nonmaleficence (do no harm) a professional boundary that must not be crossed, in addition, the medical professional is obligated to oppose, expose, and report any torture or enhanced interrogations as a matter of beneficence (do good).
Public Policy: 4) Justice
[58:11] Torture or enhanced interrogation practices must always be opposed, exposed, and reported as a matter of justice or being fair. As mandatory reporters, practitioners have a legal obligation to oppose, expose, and report any signs of possible torture as a violation of human rights to those who have the authority to intervene, investigate, and adjudicate.
[58:12] Prisoners are, by federal law (Common Rule 45CFR46), a protected vulnerable population. Failure to report torture or enhanced interrogation is in the same category as failure to report child and elder abuse, making the practitioner or medical-provider legally liable for any subsequent injury or harm resulting from the failure to oppose, expose, and report.
Conclude
[58:13] The medical profession will never deviate from the prohibition of any practitioner association with torture or enhanced interrogation techniques. The practitioner has a professional, legal, and moral duty to oppose, expose, and report torture and enhanced interrogations to those who have the authority to intervene, investigate, and adjudicate. Because prisoners are federally categorized as a vulnerable population, failure to report prisoner abuse is the same category as failure to report child and elder abuse, making the medical practitioner legally liable for any subsequent injury or harm that befalls the victim.
[58:14] In summary, the medical profession’s stance against torture and enhanced interrogation techniques remains unwavering. Medical practitioners have a duty to oppose, expose, and report these practices, fulfilling their professional, legal, and moral obligations. Any association with torture or enhanced interrogation techniques is a violation of the principles of biomedical ethics and the patient-practitioner relationship. As protectors of human rights and providers of patient-centered healthcare, practitioners must always work to ensure the well-being of those in their care, including those who have suffered from torture.
(See also: 5. Assisted Suicide, 6. Capital Punishment - Executions, 11. Death With Dignity - Practitioner-Assisted Dying, 17. Euthanasia, and 27. Interrogations)
**
58. Review Questions
1. Practitioners must never participate in any degree of torture or enhanced interrogations, and the practitioner has a professional, legal, and moral duty to oppose, expose, and report torture and enhanced interrogations.
2. Torture or enhanced interrogation techniques are not for the tortured person’s best interests, and therefore the autonomous informed consent process cannot commence.
3. Torture and enhanced interrogation practices are sometimes permissible for the practitioner if by the professional principle of beneficence (do good) others are benefited, and by the principle of justice (be fair), burdens are more fairly distributed.
4. No treatment ought to ever be provided for the person to recover enough so that they can withstand more torture, as that would be a violation of the professional principle of nonmaleficence (do no harm).
5. It is professionally, legally, and ethically permissible for a practitioner to purposefully participate in a person’s physical or psychological harm if a court of law legally mandates it.
6. Prisoners are, by federal law (Common Rule 45CFR46), a protected vulnerable population. Failure to report torture, or enhanced interrogation, is of the same category as failure to report child and elder abuse, making the practitioner or medical-provider legally liable for any subsequent injury or harm resulting from the failure to oppose, expose, and report.
**
CORRECT! 🙂
[58:1] Practitioners must never participate in any degree of torture or enhanced interrogations, and the practitioner has a professional, legal, and moral duty to oppose, expose, and report torture and enhanced interrogations.
Wrong 😕
[58:1] Practitioners must never participate in any degree of torture or enhanced interrogations, and the practitioner has a professional, legal, and moral duty to oppose, expose, and report torture and enhanced interrogations.
CORRECT! 🙂
[58:6] Torture, by definition, is incompatible with autonomy and informed consent. Torture or enhanced interrogation techniques are not for the tortured person’s best interests, and therefore the autonomous informed consent process cannot commence, nor has the victim and practitioner established a patient-practitioner relationship.
Wrong 😕
[58:6] Torture, by definition, is incompatible with autonomy and informed consent. Torture or enhanced interrogation techniques are not for the tortured person’s best interests, and therefore the autonomous informed consent process cannot commence, nor has the victim and practitioner established a patient-practitioner relationship.
Wrong 😕
[58:7] Torture and enhanced interrogation practices are prohibited as a violation of the professional principle of beneficence (do good) and the professional principle of nonmaleficence (do no harm).
CORRECT! 🙂
[58:7] Torture and enhanced interrogation practices are prohibited as a violation of the professional principle of beneficence (do good) and the professional principle of nonmaleficence (do no harm).
Wrong 😕
[58:8] Practitioners may use the professional principle of beneficence (do good) as the basis for treating those who have been injured by torture. However, no treatment ought to ever be provided for the person to recover enough so that they can withstand more torture, as that would be a violation of the professional principle of nonmaleficence (do no harm).
CORRECT! 🙂
[58:8] Practitioners may use the professional principle of beneficence (do good) as the basis for treating those who have been injured by torture. However, no treatment ought to ever be provided for the person to recover enough so that they can withstand more torture, as that would be a violation of the professional principle of nonmaleficence (do no harm).
Wrong 😕
[58:9] These prohibitions and duties to report and oppose torture include practitioners in legal war zones and under the direct orders of military superiors. “I was only following orders” is no justification for participation. As a matter of nonmaleficence (do no harm), it is always professionally unethical for a practitioner to purposefully participate in a person’s physical or psychological harm regardless of who orders it or what court of law legally mandates it.
CORRECT! 🙂
[58:9] These prohibitions and duties to report and oppose torture include practitioners in legal war zones and under the direct orders of military superiors. “I was only following orders” is no justification for participation. As a matter of nonmaleficence (do no harm), it is always professionally unethical for a practitioner to purposefully participate in a person’s physical or psychological harm regardless of who orders it or what court of law legally mandates it.
CORRECT! 🙂
[58:12] Prisoners are, by federal law (Common Rule 45CFR46), a protected vulnerable population. Failure to report torture, or enhanced interrogation, is of the same category as failure to report child and elder abuse, making the practitioner or medical-provider legally liable for any subsequent injury or harm resulting from the failure to oppose, expose, and report.
Wrong 😕
[58:12] Prisoners are, by federal law (Common Rule 45CFR46), a protected vulnerable population. Failure to report torture, or enhanced interrogation, is of the same category as failure to report child and elder abuse, making the practitioner or medical-provider legally liable for any subsequent injury or harm resulting from the failure to oppose, expose, and report.
58. Clinical Vignettes
1. Mr. Adam Harris is a 34-year-old veteran who served in Iraq and Afghanistan as a military intelligence analyst. He presents to the clinic with symptoms of depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder. During the consultation, the practitioner learns that Mr. Harris had been subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques during his time in the military. The differential diagnosis includes PTSD related to combat, PTSD related to torture, depression, and anxiety disorders. What ethical principle is violated if the practitioner fails to report possible torture or enhanced interrogation techniques used on Mr. Harris?
2. Dr. Samantha Powell is a 28-year-old licensed psychologist who works at a detention center for undocumented immigrants. She has been approached by a government official to provide psychological evaluations for detainees who have been subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques. The official offers her a substantial amount of money in exchange for her cooperation. Dr. Washington is conflicted about what to do and seeks advice from a colleague. What is the ethical obligation of Dr. Washington as a practitioner regarding participation in torture or enhanced interrogation techniques?
3. Dr. John Kelly is a 42-year-old practitioner working in a military hospital in a war zone. He is approached by his commanding officer, who orders him to perform medical procedures on detainees who have been subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques so that the enhanced interrogation can continue. The officer threatens Mr. Kelly with disciplinary action and court-martial if he refuses to comply. What is Dr. Kelly's ethical obligation as a practitioner regarding participation in torture or enhanced interrogation techniques?
4. Dr. David Martin is a 50-year-old practitioner working in a correctional facility. One of his patients, a detainee who has been subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques, requests that Dr. Martin not report any injuries he sustained during the interrogation to the authorities. The detainee states that he fears retaliation from the interrogators if they find out that he reported the injuries. What is Dr. Martin's ethical obligation as a practitioner regarding confidentiality and the duty to report torture or enhanced interrogation?
5. Ms. Samantha Brown is a 28-year-old practitioner working in a refugee camp in a country with a history of human rights abuses. She is approached by a government official who requests that she conduct medical examinations on political prisoners who have been subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques. The official tells Ms. Brown that the examinations are necessary to ensure the health and safety of the prisoners. What is Ms. Brown's ethical obligation as a practitioner regarding the duty to provide medical care, the duty to report abuse, and the potential risks of collaborating with an oppressive government?
CORRECT! 🙂
Explanation: According to the medical profession's ethical guidelines, practitioners have a legal obligation to oppose, expose, and report any signs of possible torture as a violation of human rights to those who have the authority to intervene, investigate, and adjudicate [58:11]. As mandatory reporters, practitioners must report torture or enhanced interrogation as a matter of justice or fairness. Failure to report torture or enhanced interrogation is considered the same as failure to report child and elder abuse, making the practitioner or medical-provider legally liable for any subsequent injury or harm resulting from the failure to oppose, expose, and report [58:12]. Therefore, the correct answer is Justice, because failing to report possible torture or enhanced interrogation violates the principle of the public policy.
Wrong 😕
Explanation: According to the medical profession's ethical guidelines, practitioners have a legal obligation to oppose, expose, and report any signs of possible torture as a violation of human rights to those who have the authority to intervene, investigate, and adjudicate [58:11]. As mandatory reporters, practitioners must report torture or enhanced interrogation as a matter of justice or fairness. Failure to report torture or enhanced interrogation is considered the same as failure to report child and elder abuse, making the practitioner or medical-provider legally liable for any subsequent injury or harm resulting from the failure to oppose, expose, and report [58:12]. Therefore, the correct answer is Justice, because failing to report possible torture or enhanced interrogation violates the principle of the public policy.
Wrong 😕
Explanation: As a practitioner, Dr. Washington must never participate in any degree of torture or enhanced interrogation techniques, and she has a professional, legal, and moral duty to oppose, expose, and report torture or enhanced interrogations [58:2-3]. She should refuse to participate in any degree of torture or enhanced interrogation techniques and report the official's request to higher authorities. Practitioners must not be a party to and must speak out against torture or other abuses of human rights [58:2]. The principles of autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice dictate that practitioners must never cross the boundary of participating in torture or enhanced interrogation [58:4-5]. Practitioners have a legal obligation to report possible torture as a violation of human rights, and failure to report abuse is considered the same as failure to report child or elder abuse and can result in legal liability [58:11-12]. Dr. Washington has a professional, legal, and moral duty to refuse to participate in any degree of torture or enhanced interrogation techniques and to report the official's request to higher authorities.
CORRECT! 🙂
Explanation: As a practitioner, Dr. Washington must never participate in any degree of torture or enhanced interrogation techniques, and she has a professional, legal, and moral duty to oppose, expose, and report torture or enhanced interrogations [58:2-3]. She should refuse to participate in any degree of torture or enhanced interrogation techniques and report the official's request to higher authorities. Practitioners must not be a party to and must speak out against torture or other abuses of human rights [58:2]. The principles of autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice dictate that practitioners must never cross the boundary of participating in torture or enhanced interrogation [58:4-5]. Practitioners have a legal obligation to report possible torture as a violation of human rights, and failure to report abuse is considered the same as failure to report child or elder abuse and can result in legal liability [58:11-12]. Dr. Washington has a professional, legal, and moral duty to refuse to participate in any degree of torture or enhanced interrogation techniques and to report the official's request to higher authorities.
CORRECT! 🙂
Explanation: As a practitioner, Dr. Kelly must never participate in any degree of torture or enhanced interrogation techniques, and he has a professional, legal, and moral duty to oppose, expose, and report torture or enhanced interrogations [58:2-3]. He should refuse to participate in any degree of torture or enhanced interrogation techniques and report the officer's orders to higher authorities. The medical profession holds practitioners accountable for reporting abuse, including in legal war zones or under the orders of superiors [58:1]. Torture and enhanced interrogation are in total contradiction with the medical profession's directive of maximizing the patient's best interests, using the biomedical principles of autonomy (informed consent), beneficence (do good), nonmaleficence (do no harm), and justice (be fair) [58:4-5]. "I was only following orders" is no justification for participation in physical or psychological harm, regardless of who orders it or what court of law legally mandates it [58:9]. Practitioners have a legal obligation to report possible torture as a violation of human rights, and failure to report abuse is considered the same as failure to report child or elder abuse and can result in legal liability [58:11-12]. Therefore, the correct answer is Dr. Kelly has a professional, legal, and moral duty to refuse to participate in any degree of torture or enhanced interrogation techniques and to report the officer's orders to higher authorities.
Wrong 😕
Explanation: As a practitioner, Dr. Kelly must never participate in any degree of torture or enhanced interrogation techniques, and he has a professional, legal, and moral duty to oppose, expose, and report torture or enhanced interrogations [58:2-3]. He should refuse to participate in any degree of torture or enhanced interrogation techniques and report the officer's orders to higher authorities. The medical profession holds practitioners accountable for reporting abuse, including in legal war zones or under the orders of superiors [58:1]. Torture and enhanced interrogation are in total contradiction with the medical profession's directive of maximizing the patient's best interests, using the biomedical principles of autonomy (informed consent), beneficence (do good), nonmaleficence (do no harm), and justice (be fair) [58:4-5]. "I was only following orders" is no justification for participation in physical or psychological harm, regardless of who orders it or what court of law legally mandates it [58:9]. Practitioners have a legal obligation to report possible torture as a violation of human rights, and failure to report abuse is considered the same as failure to report child or elder abuse and can result in legal liability [58:11-12]. Therefore, the correct answer is Dr. Kelly has a professional, legal, and moral duty to refuse to participate in any degree of torture or enhanced interrogation techniques and to report the officer's orders to higher authorities.
CORRECT! 🙂
Explanation: Dr. Martin's duty to report torture or enhanced interrogation takes precedence over the patient's confidentiality. As a healthcare provider, he has a legal and ethical duty to report any instances of torture or abuse, even if it is against the wishes of the patient [58:11-12]. Failure to report torture or enhanced interrogation could lead to legal liability and jeopardize the safety and well-being of the patient. Therefore, Dr. Martin must prioritize his duty to report the incident and ensure the safety of the patient. While negotiating with the patient and attempting to convince him to allow the injuries sustained during the interrogation to be reported to the authorities while ensuring the patient's safety is a valid ethical consideration, ultimately, Dr. Martin is mandated to report the incident of torture. Seeking legal advice may also be helpful, but it should not delay or override Dr. Martin's duty to report the incident [58:13]. Therefore, Dr. Martin should report the injuries sustained during the interrogation to the authorities, as he has a legal and ethical obligation to report torture or enhanced interrogation [58:1].
Wrong 😕
Explanation: Dr. Martin's duty to report torture or enhanced interrogation takes precedence over the patient's confidentiality. As a healthcare provider, he has a legal and ethical duty to report any instances of torture or abuse, even if it is against the wishes of the patient [58:11-12]. Failure to report torture or enhanced interrogation could lead to legal liability and jeopardize the safety and well-being of the patient. Therefore, Dr. Martin must prioritize his duty to report the incident and ensure the safety of the patient. While negotiating with the patient and attempting to convince him to allow the injuries sustained during the interrogation to be reported to the authorities while ensuring the patient's safety is a valid ethical consideration, ultimately, Dr. Martin is mandated to report the incident of torture. Seeking legal advice may also be helpful, but it should not delay or override Dr. Martin's duty to report the incident [58:13]. Therefore, Dr. Martin should report the injuries sustained during the interrogation to the authorities, as he has a legal and ethical obligation to report torture or enhanced interrogation [58:1].
CORRECT! 🙂
Explanation: Ms. Brown's duty to provide medical care to those in need must be balanced with her duty to report abuse and her potential risks of collaborating with an oppressive government. Compliance with the government official's request may indirectly contribute to the continuation of torture or enhanced interrogation, which is against Ms. Brown's professional obligations [58:4-5]. Refusing to comply with the government official's request and reporting the incident to higher authorities is a valid ethical consideration, but it may also expose Ms. Brown to risks such as retaliation from the government or expulsion from the country. Negotiating with the government official and attempting to find alternative ways to ensure the health and safety of the political prisoners while avoiding collaborating with an oppressive government may also be appropriate in some situations, but it may not be feasible or effective in all cases [58:1]. Seeking guidance from her colleagues, medical associations, or human rights organizations may help Ms. Brown make a more informed decision and reduce her potential risks of collaborating with an oppressive government [58:13]. As a mandated reporter, failure to report torture or enhanced interrogation is in the same category as failure to report child and elder abuse, making the practitioner or medical-provider legally liable for any subsequent injury or harm resulting from the failure to oppose, expose, and report [58:12]. Therefore, In order to fulfill her ethical and legal obligations, Ms. Brown should seek guidance from her colleagues, medical associations, or human rights organizations before deciding whether to comply with the government official's request or report the incident. Additionally, if torture or enhanced interrogation is occurring, she must report the abuse, as failure to do so would make her legally liable for any subsequent injury or harm, similar to the failure to report child and elder abuse [58:11-12].
Wrong 😕
Explanation: Ms. Brown's duty to provide medical care to those in need must be balanced with her duty to report abuse and her potential risks of collaborating with an oppressive government. Compliance with the government official's request may indirectly contribute to the continuation of torture or enhanced interrogation, which is against Ms. Brown's professional obligations [58:4-5]. Refusing to comply with the government official's request and reporting the incident to higher authorities is a valid ethical consideration, but it may also expose Ms. Brown to risks such as retaliation from the government or expulsion from the country. Negotiating with the government official and attempting to find alternative ways to ensure the health and safety of the political prisoners while avoiding collaborating with an oppressive government may also be appropriate in some situations, but it may not be feasible or effective in all cases [58:1]. Seeking guidance from her colleagues, medical associations, or human rights organizations may help Ms. Brown make a more informed decision and reduce her potential risks of collaborating with an oppressive government [58:13]. As a mandated reporter, failure to report torture or enhanced interrogation is in the same category as failure to report child and elder abuse, making the practitioner or medical-provider legally liable for any subsequent injury or harm resulting from the failure to oppose, expose, and report [58:12]. Therefore, In order to fulfill her ethical and legal obligations, Ms. Brown should seek guidance from her colleagues, medical associations, or human rights organizations before deciding whether to comply with the government official's request or report the incident. Additionally, if torture or enhanced interrogation is occurring, she must report the abuse, as failure to do so would make her legally liable for any subsequent injury or harm, similar to the failure to report child and elder abuse [58:11-12].
**
58. Reflection Vignettes
1. The commanding officer orders Dr. Jane Smith, a 35-year-old military physician, to provide blood to a prisoner being tortured so they can continue the enhanced interrogation techniques. The prisoner is experiencing severe physical trauma and blood loss due to the torture, and the officer wants to use the physician's medical expertise to keep the prisoner alive and conscious during the interrogation.
Providing blood to a prisoner for the purpose of continuing torture is unethical and violates the principles of medical ethics. The physician has a duty to uphold patient autonomy, beneficence, and nonmaleficence, which are foundational to the practice of medicine. Providing blood to a prisoner in this context violates the principle of nonmaleficence, as it prolongs the prisoner's suffering and facilitates torture. It also violates the principle of beneficence, as the physician is not acting in the best interest of the prisoner's health and well-being, but rather in the interest of the interrogators' agenda. Providing blood in this context also violates the principle of patient autonomy, as the prisoner is being subjected to torture and has no say in the medical procedures being performed on them. Therefore, it is the duty of the physician to refuse to comply with such an order and to report the officer's unethical and illegal actions to appropriate authorities.
Think
Assess
Patient: Autonomy
Practitioner: Beneficence & Nonmaleficence
Public Policy: Justice
Conclude
**
2. Dr. Rachel Lee is a 38-year-old physician and former military medical officer who has recently transitioned to private practice. She receives a request from a former colleague still serving in the military who is seeking her advice on how to make interrogation techniques more effective and humane. The colleague is specifically seeking advice on how to administer medication to enhance interrogation techniques and is asking Dr. Lee to provide her expertise in pharmacology.
It is unethical for Dr. Lee to provide any advice or techniques that would contribute to torture or inhumane treatment of detainees, even if she is not directly participating in these activities. As a physician, Dr. Lee is bound by the Hippocratic Oath and the principles of medical ethics, which include the obligation to do no harm and to protect the dignity and well-being of all patients, regardless of their status. Providing advice that contributes to torture or inhumane treatment goes against these principles and violates the trust that patients have in their healthcare providers. Additionally, such actions may also violate international and domestic laws against torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment. Therefore, it is imperative that Dr. Lee refuses to provide any such advice and instead upholds her ethical and legal obligations as a physician.
Think
Assess
Patient: Autonomy
Practitioner: Beneficence & Nonmaleficence
Public Policy: Justice
Conclude
***
