physician involvement with detainee interrogations

What do you think about physician involvement with interrogation techniques (largely considered torture) utilized on detainees at Guantanamo Bay? Know of any books that speak to this issue?

Interesting article... http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/353/24/2529

Oath Betrayed: Torture, Medical Complicity, and the War on Terror

is the only one I recall. Oh and Didn't the BMA speak up against Forced feeding there in the lancet?

Thanks! I was not aware of OATH BETRAYED...

Regarding forced feeding, I'd guess that's a tricky one to some extent ... a lot of U.S. doctors are against assisted suicide, with the point of view that helping people kill themselves violates the Hippocratic oath ... is letting someone starve to death helping him/her commit suicide? Or does that not count because it's more of a "sin by omission" kind of thing?

Message 6: EncompassedRunner -- I'll bite on this one. Do you believe that Teri Schiavo should have been kept alive indefinitely with her feeding tube?

I cannot align myself with Peter Singer who advocates euthanasia for babies with severe defects and disabilities, but I have a hard time justifying the cost, financially and otherwise, for people who are in irreversible persistent vegetative states with irreparable brain damage -- as was Schiavo.

Maybe living wills should be required when one gets a driver's license or registers to vote.

There is a medical, moral, and legal distinction in the United States between killing a patient and allowing them to die if treatment is considered too burdensome or of no benefit for that individual. (Traditionally in the Catholic Church...expressed as ordinary vs. extraordinary treatment). Feeding tubes are just like any other medical treatment (i.e. ventilators, dialysis, etc.) If there is sufficient evidence that an incompetent patient at one time expressed their wishes to forgo certain treatments based on what they consider to be burdensome, then they have the right to forgo that treatment (even if it is a feeding tube).

You know, I when I first saw the thing about "forced feeding," I got it stuck in my head that the discussion was about political prisoner types going on hunger strikes (I'm currently reading a book that touches on the IRA) ... if we're talking about Terry Schiavo situations, well, is that really being "force" fed? I'm with theolojen on that anyway ...

Yes not comparable I think, those that argued for the continuation of her life were of the opinion that she would have wished to be fed. I don't see any one arguing that in the case of Guantanamo. I find it hard to believe compassion in any form is a motivation.
merely political or military expediency.

As a doctor one should
" keep the good of the patient as the highest priority" are there circumstances where the doctor is a better judge of the good of the patient than the patient, if so when?

yes, our subjects did get crossed somewhere along the way =) Two COMPLETELY seperate issues. We should definitely start a Terri Schiavo thread...

On the other hand are they completely seperate? can one consistantly continue one persons life against their will while allowing another to die?

I can't remember the exact details of the Schiavo case, but if someone in her condition had clearly made it known she didn't want "extraordinary intervention," then removing the feeding tube would not be against her will, which would be a big difference ... it could then be more reasonably argued (IMHO) that removing it was in the patient's best interests and did less harm than leaving it in.