Doctors forbid roles in harsh interrogations

[Robbien]

CHICAGO (Reuters) - The American Medical Association on Monday voted to refine its ethical guidelines that forbid doctors from participating in torture or "coercive" interrogations of prisoners.

The action was prompted by unconfirmed allegations that physicians or psychiatrists played roles in harsh interrogations conducted at the U.S. prison camp in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, or abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

The 544-member house of delegates, which sets policy for the leading U.S. physicians group, voted at its annual meeting to approve a seven-page report that outlined a physician's duty "as healer" not to take any part in interrogating prisoners.

Other stipulations called for doctors to provide medical care to detainees as they would to any patient -- in strict confidence.

Similarly, doctors are not ethically permitted to participate in executions, or to heal an inmate to make him well enough to be put to death, the AMA said.

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=healthNews&storyID=2006-06-13T024926Z_01_N12360637_RTRIDST_0_HEALTH-SECURITY-DOCTORS-DC.XML&archived=False

[Bonescrat]

1. Amazed that this requires a vote.

"or to heal an inmate to make him well enough to be put to death"

Boggles the mind that someone felt the need to put that on paper.

[TechBear_Seattle]

7. Things that should be able to go unsaid...

Generally should not go unsaid. I am glad the AMA is taking an official stand on this matter, and has followed all of the proper forms such as a vote of membership to enforce this stand. It is not a political matter taken by a small board of directors: it is an ethical one that reflects the attitudes and beliefs of the AMA rank-and-file.

[Kagemusha]

2. "or to heal an inmate to make him well enough to be put to death"

Thanks to the Supreme Court, that's a hot topic right now, isn't it? Now to be reviewed by lower courts because (where else?) Texas wants to drug up a psychotic to make him sane enough to appreciate being slain.

[lindisfarne]

5. But this is more complicated: how is a dr. to be certain a pt. will be put

to death. Not treating may ensure death by lack of treating. Treating may or may not ensure being put to death. I think even with this policy, doctors have to treat, if not doing so ensures death, as they cannot predict with 100% accuracy the future.

The Texas case, however, is interesting: I wonder if the AMA was thinking about it? No member of the AMA could prescribe the drugs to that prisoner, but the AMA policy is not binding on all physicians (see OP: "sets policy for the leading U.S. physicians group").

I went to the AMA website and couldn't find a copy of the report (may be in the restricted section).

[Sgent]

8. AMA Ethics bylaws are sometimes binding on all physicians

Although strictly correct -- AMA ethic's rules only apply to AMA members, this doesn't completely tell the story.

Many (most?) state medical boards adopt the AMA ethic's rules as their own, sometimes with modifications, but usually without.

[Judi Lynn]

3. There must be a sub-species they've been educating & using as doctors

to assist _Bush-serving military torturers. It's simply inconceivable ANYONE representing the human race could bring himself/herself to approve of these actions.

There's probably a right-wing fund to sponsor people of absolutely no character to get through medical school or law school to aid and implement right-wing policy wherever they can be useful.

[ThsMchneKilsFascists]

4. Here's a likely member of that sub-species

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, M.D., (R-Tenn.)

[saigon68]

6. He is scum