In November, 2007, one of America’s most renowned doctors was recruited by the CIA to treat an operative in Langley, Virginia. The diagnostician took some brazen steps in curing the agent “John” and was successful in his often-criticized experimental methods. With narcissistic bravado, television’s most cynical physician Gregory House saved the day in “Whatever it Takes.”
House, however, is not your everyday diagnostician, or for that matter, your average CIA-affiliated doctor…and that’s just too bad, because compared to the medical researchers involved in government interrogations, Greg is Father Teresa. This past June, Physicians for Human Rights came out with a report detailing CIA experiments with prisoners post-9/11. As suspected terrorists are waterboarded at Guantanamo Bay, health professionals conducted research along the way, stopping interrogations to record data and take notes. They used a litany of techniques to “calibrate the levels of pain” and even tried using a saline solution for waterboarding to allow for repeated interrogation. Well, at least they made some discoveries along the way; why stop torture techniques when you can avoid killing the guy, right? Investigations regarding these “studies” are still underway, but it’s a shame to think half a century after the Nuremberg Code and the American Common Rule we are still concocting excuses and reasons for experimenting on individuals without consent. If that doesn’t sound morally vulgar and convoluted yet, consider that the results of these clandestine experiments are being used to justify the torture methods.
Then again, some would call me out on being impractical. Ethically cognizant perhaps, but foolishly mistaken. They would contend that these terrorists would be interrogated and tortured anyway, and with medical research alongside, why should this golden opportunity be for naught? After all, we’re not addressing the issue of torture here; we’re commenting on the use of experimentation if torture is a given.
To the wise folk who tout the banner of logic: let’s grab our vials and notepads and pay the next-door neighbor a visit when he’s sleeping…put him through an EEG perhaps and gain some insight into his dreams. And no need to ask…instead, just sedate the guy because he’d be counting sheep anyway! Ludicrous and absurd as this scenario sounds, the idea behind it is worse. These prisoners have rights, as well, and we can't just experiment on them unless they give consent. As University of Pennsylvania professor Jonathan Moreno says, “You can’t use people as laboratories.”
And of course, you have your share of bigots; the fiery CIA proponents who feel we have these terrorists in custody and their lives are in our hands. I mean, these rascals wanted to kill us! So we can do anything because as Americans, we’ve got the moral high ground. We can do “Whatever it Takes.”
But somehow, I feel that’s a level of chilling heartlessness even House would fail to reach.
---
1 comment:
You compare the use of suspected terrorists for scientific research to Doctor Gregory House whose job is to save lives. In my opinion, there is a vast distinction between scientific research and medicine. The point of research is to discover what has until now, been shadowed and the point of medicine is to heal and save lives. Research is somewhat more risky because it is meant to test what has not been investigated in the past, whereas medicine follows safer guidelines because it is literally responsible for preserving life.
Terrorists, by definition have it in their aim to kill other people and destroy specific locations. Perhaps this is a forward assertion, but I believe that if they see no wrong in killing other people then there should be no guilt felt in reciprocating the same intention upon them (but with a purpose at hand- to use for scientific experiment). I understand that just because one person believes in killing does not mean that another person should follow suit with the same belief, but likewise, I can see the ethical justice behind “getting what you give.” I don’t think you’re able to compare the Nuremberg Code to this situation because the Nuremberg Code was instituted in response to the horrific procedures the Nazi doctors were performing on prisoners in Nazi concentration camps during World War II. In that case, doctors were manipulating and forcing innocent people who had been tortured for no reason to undergo experiments without consent. In the present day case, doctors are testing (and not even to as far an extent as before) imprisoned terrorists who have the intention of destroying other people.
Now if these imprisoned people were simply under interrogation because it was still uncertain if they were in fact terrorists, then perhaps it would be unethical to conduct any experiments on them. However, if it was at least seventy five percent certain that the imprisoned people were terrorists, then in my opinion, it would not be ethical, but also wouldn’t be unethical to conduct experiments on them. Overall, I don’t think you can compare medicine to research because they are two completely different fields.
Post a Comment