The Morally Praiseworthy Actions of Medical Professionals who Provide Care for Enemy Combatants

5. Angels of mercy medical professionals will kill their patients for financial gain, or just because they can, or they feel like they are helping their patients by getting rid of the pain or sickness.

This paper discusses the unethical treatment of group of black soldiers. The Tuskegee Airman was an influential squad during World War II. During World War II the Tuskegee airman face a lot racists people who didn’t want them to succeed, but they did not only succeed in their endeavor , but they excelled. The Tuskegee Airman became the first black Air Force pilots despite all the events they had to endure. This paper entails the different ethical concept that applies. It also addresses the different guidelines that was violate. Final this paper addresses the need for trust in the medical community.

Again, this highlights how patients viewed inhumanely are treated as such, without the personal concern or care a doctor ought to demonstrate when attending to their patients. This inhumane treatment leads to one patient’s eyes turning “all smoked up and gray and deserted inside like blown fuses” and forcing another to “[short] out [...] in an awful twist of smoke and smell of burned rubber” (16-17, 31-32). Viewing and treating the patients as inhuman clearly causes all sorts of issues, as mental illness cannot effectively be treated in a “Shock

As a medical student the involvement of American doctors in torturing prisoners of war is troubling since it is reminiscence of Nazi doctors experimenting on Jews in concentration camps during WWII. Also, as students we are taught to “do no harm,” but do no harm to whom? In this case, the prisoners or the American people.

To execute a man who is severely deranged without treatment, and arguably incompetent when treated, is the pinnacle of what Justice Marshall called 'the barbarity of exacting mindless vengeance. This leaves those doctors who are treating psychotic, condemned prisoners in an untenable position: treating the prisoner may provide short-term relief but ultimately result in his execution, whereas leaving him untreated will condemn him to a world such as Singleton's, filled with disturbing delusions and

I think that the doctors and people in the Holocaust who either peacefully killed someone to prevent them from a gruesome death, or to save the lives of others were doing the correct thing. It is argued that doctors are supposed to prolong the lives of their patients not finish them, but in the case of a war where very few made it out alive, and others were sent to tragic torture, it was the only option. Rabbi Ephraim Oshry “permitted a man faced with torture to commit suicide”, this was a tough choice, but he did what is right because it is not looked down upon in his

Torture is not a new ethical dilemma, because torture has been practiced throughout human history and in different cultures. Now, however, the Geneva Convention and other modern norms suggest that human beings should not resort to using torture. Torture is becoming taboo as a method of intelligence gathering, which is why the methods used during the Iraq war were decried. However, the ethical case can be made for torture. If torturing one human being leads to information that could save the lives of a thousand, torture suddenly seems like a sensible method. This is a utilitarian perspective on torture, which many people find palatable. However, there are problems with this method of thinking about torture. The state-sanctioned use of torture creates a normative framework in which torture becomes acceptable. Torture sends the wrong message about what a free, open, and enlightened society should be. Even if torture is only acceptable in extreme circumstances, as with a suspect who might know something about an impending terrorist attack, who decides when and what type of torture should be used? There is too much potential for abuse of the moral loophole with regards to torture. If the United States hopes to be a role model, then torture cannot fit into its intelligence methods.

Metzner & Fellner (2010) stated, “Physicians are ethically obligated to refrain from countenancing, condoning, participating in, and facilitating torture or other forms of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment” (p.106). Physicians are discouraged from participating in interrogations and executions of convicted offenders. There has been several botched executions in the United States and “courts in some states have ruled that a doctor must be present during the execution to monitor the condemned for signs of pain. The American Medical Association states that physicians who take part in executions violate medical

The United States has been, and may again be, under terrorist threat and attacks or other similar incidents. Torture can be used to prevent these terrible incidents and save the lives of many people. Torture in the United States has been a debatable subject for many years now but after resent tragedies, the idea of torture of many American citizens has changed. It has also been debated over more after the attacks on September 9, 2001 than any other time in American history. Many fight the legalization of torture for moral and civil reasons but the truth is that torture is a lesser evil that can be used for a greater good.

We were willing and enthusiastic participants in the events of the Third Reich. We sterilized disabled German citizens. We decided who would marry and who would not marry. We euthanized German children and adults whose lives were "not worth living." We designed the gas chambers for mass murder -- and we were on the ramps making selections. We were there.

In the novel The Adoration of Jenna Fox, by Mary E. Pearson, an important message is the value of medical ethics. The author shows us many points of view on this issue. The two that are the most prominent are 1) that medical ethics are important, and we should have laws regarding them, and 2) that while medical ethics are important, we should still be able to save those we love, even if it breaks the law.

According to the author of Oath Betrayed, Steven H. Miles, a total of 130 different countries employ health professionals to carry out torture in interrogation practices. Clearly, this directly conflicts with the normative perspective of doctors in the presence of war who are expected to uphold human rights and follow an ethical and professional path to helping all people whether they are enemy or not. Doctors are the very foundation to the health and well-being of society. Yet doctors actively participate in torturing prisoners of war. Without the presence of a moralistic figure, the only shred of reason and sense of humanity is subsequently lost. Doctors are both a physical and moral necessity for all war participants; thus, when their roles are altered and their skills are exploited for the wrong reasons, corruption ensues and their war contribution is counterproductive.

Many in the healthcare profession today are challenged with different ethical values; when it comes to healthcare provider and patient relationship. One of those ethical values is when to show mercy and no harm to those left in a health provider care. Most healthcare givers would, but what about those who are providing care in a government interrogation area? In this summarization; two valuable principles, beneficence and nonmaleficence will be discussed. Also, an in-depth analyzation of a case study of a military doctor whose ethics will may be tested.

The perception of a white coat healer to turn to the black coat killer is very disturbing because the soothing hands should never convert into those that are delivering the pains. The medical personnel is being used by certain states to medicalize slaughter of prisoners so they could be in a position to be more pleasing to the public's eyes. Consequently, without the medical personnel, the death penalty would look as “cruel and unusual punishment.” The practitioners are used as tools to make capital punishment looks legal that infringe the liberties and moral standards which undervalues a doctor's’ purpose that is to live by the Code of Medical Ethics. The spirit of the Hippocratic Oath is that “a physician, as a member of a profession, is

Imagine you are injured or sick and have sought a doctor’s help. Although you trusted your doctor, something, something seemingly very in control of the doctor, went wrong. You are angry and confused, but also think of the commonality of medical malpractice. So, why do doctors, who are supposed to help, harm? Though many flaws influence it, malpractice can be, and often is unintentional. Most doctors aren’t trained to harm their patients. Inexperience and lack of medical discovery led to unintentional suffering of the patient. Personal flaws, like lack of willingness to abandon previous medical methods and shortcomings in communication also harm patients. Further reasons why doctors harm are socio-medical understandings that breed hate, prejudices stemming from a society’s belief about certain people, such as the medical practice under the Nazi regime. Additionally, displayed in the case of Ignác Semmelweis, judgement of one to oneself can be detrimental to any progress one’s ideas could make. We will examine these concepts through Jerome Groopman’s “Flesh-and-Blood Decision Making”, Sherwin Nuland’s The Doctors’ Plague and Barbara Bachrach’s “In the Name of Public Health”. Those who practice medicine are, unfortunately, unfree from the imperfections that plague all of humanity. Through these intimate and varied faults, doctors do harm.