The current edition of The Lancet has a highly critical article which questions the ethics of medical professionals involved in interrogation. It's written by Dr Michael Wilks, currently principal forensic medical examiner for the Metropolitan Police and Chairman of the British Medical Association's medical ethics committee. "A stain on medical ethics."
"The involvement of doctors in torture and the abuse of prisoners' human rights has been well documented over the past few decades. It is therefore disturbing that the cultural and social factors that have seduced individual health professionals and their institutions into participating in abuse have persisted, and have therefore remained unchallenged." Link
I feel it's pointless to get bogged down in the specifics of the current events which will no doubt be endlessly debated elsewhere and doubtless in more depth and accuracy than I am capable of. My interest lies in a point that DrWilks make with particular reference to those working in the psychological fields.
" The problem is that published codes are strong in their application with the one-to-one relationship with patients, but weak when applied to communities, and therefore open to distortion and misrepresentation."
It's a valid point and one of great concern.
Is it just me or has The Lancet become much more radical than it used to be?
Update: As an interesting aside just found " The Legality of the Use of Psychiatric Neuroimaging in Intelligence Interrogation" via Brain Waves
No Need to Click Here - I'm just claiming my feed at Feedster feedster:910841cd4f4ea4c3baa56397b8d6e50f
12:12:45 AM 
|
