Journal Article

The Ethics of Interrogation — The U.S. Military's Ongoing Use of Psychiatrists

Marks, Jonathan H, Bloche, M. Gregg

2008

Overview

Jonathan Marks and Dr. M. Gregg Bloche write that the AMA and APA firmly oppose physicians' helping to devise interrogation plans for individual detainees. Yet documents recently provided by the U.S. Army make clear that the Department of Defense still wants doctors to be involved. In May 2006, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) adopted a position statement prohibiting psychiatrists from “direct participation” in the interrogation of any person in military or civilian detention — including “being present in the interrogation room, asking or suggesting questions, or advising authorities on the use of specific techniques of interrogation with particular detainees.” 1 A few weeks later, the Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs of the American Medical Association (AMA) issued a similar opinion, stating that “physicians must neither conduct nor directly participate in an interrogation, because a role as physician–interrogator undermines the physician's role as healer.” 2 The opinion . . .

• Publisher: Massachusetts Medical Society
• Subject: Codes of Ethics / Consultants / Ethics, Medical / Humans / Military Psychiatry - ethics / Prisoner treatment / Prisoners / Psychiatrists / Public Policy / Questioning / Societies, Medical / Torture / Torture - ethics / United States / United States Government Agencies / Warfare - ethics