The Nappy Cat Chronicles

Although “the confession” has long been held in high esteem by most religions and cultures, torture was likely begun as an abusive venture by those whose goal was to demarcate the free man from the slave and thereby ensure acquiescence to the security of the social hierarchy (Maio, 2001). The first reference to medical personnel as being complicit in torture was recorded in the 1532 German penal code known as the Constitutio Criminalis Carolina in which physicians were to determine “fitness” for torture (Aggrawal, 2001). After 1532, the recorded history of torture indicates that medical personnel determined “fitness,” assessed malingering, advised the doles of dolor when to stop in order to prevent a premature termination of the torture through death, and treated subsequent injuries so that the torture could recommence (Maio, 2001).

Currently, medical personnel of all stripes are strictly forbidden by ethical protocol from engaging in the interrogative practices of their historical counterparts. According to the American Medical Association (2006):

Physicians must neither conduct nor directly participate in an interrogation, because a role as physician-interrogator undermines the physician’s role as healer and thereby erodes trust in the individual physician-interrogator and in the medical profession. Physicians must not monitor interrogations with the intention of intervening in the process, because this constitutes direct participation in interrogation. (¶ 3-4)

In a closely worded statement specifically addressing the role of psychiatrists in interrogative procedures, the American Psychiatric Association (2006) put forth that “[n]o psychiatrist should participate directly in the interrogation of persons held in custody….Direct participation includes being present in the interrogation room, asking or suggesting questions, or advising authorities on the use of specific techniques of interrogation with particular detainees” (¶ 3). The American Psychological Association, on the other hand, does not explicitly forbid psychologists from direct participation in interrogation that is legal (Miles, 2007, ¶ 19).

The full extent to which medical personnel participated in the documented and undocumented abuses at Guantánamo Bay and Abu Ghraib (see Walsh, 2006) is unknown. However, what is known is disturbing. Zernike (2004) reports that, at Abu Ghraib:

Much of the evidence of abuse at the prison came from medical documents. Records and statements show doctors and medics reporting to the area of the prison where the abuse occurred several times to stitch wounds, tend to collapsed prisoners or see patients with bruised or reddened genitals. (¶ 11)

It is likely that the medical personnel knew that the injuries resulted from abuse yet failed to report them and thereby strengthened the unfortunate wall of military silence that enabled the abuse. In addition to the previously mentioned ways that BSCT medical personnel were complicit in abusive interrogative procedures, charges leveled against the medical personnel include advising military personnel on how to exploit the fear and phobias of detainees, giving detainee medical records to military personnel in order to maximize interrogative effectiveness, participating in the abuse, failing to investigate detainee deaths, and falsifying detainee death certificates (Keram, 2006; Lifton, 2004; Miles, 2004).

The rationale for the direct involvement by medical personnel in interrogation is that the ethics inherent to the relationship between patient and provider did not apply the medical members of BSCT. Referring to the BSCT medical personnel, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman “suggested that the doctors advising interrogators were not covered by ethics strictures because they were not treating patients but rather were acting as behavioral scientists” (Lewis, 2005, ¶ 6). This medical acquiescence to this “dual oath” meme is illustrated by Cohen (2005) who argued that “I consider myself to be a compassionate doctor, yet…my responsibilities as a human being and an American citizen take precedence over any doctrine, professional or otherwise” (p. 1633). Georgetown University professor Dr. Nancy Sherman, a member of the small group who visited Camp Delta, concluded that the “dual oath” argument “is a red herring. It is hair-splitting that detracts from the real issue of whether health professionals of any stripe can ethically be involved in interrogations that may involve coercive techniques or torture. The answer is clearly no” (Sherman, 2005, ¶ 10).