Author's reply to review of Bioethics and Armed Conflict

doi:10.1136/bmj.39058.718067.3A

BMJ 2006;333:1271-1272 (16 December), doi:10.1136/bmj.39058.718067.3A

Letters

Author's reply to review of Bioethics and Armed Conflict

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

As Nathanson says in her review of my book,¹I argue that the use of "moderate physical pressure" might bedefensible in some cases. "Defensible" is the right word. Theacts may be excused but are not justified. However, I don'tdefend interrogational torture with any great enthusiasm butsimply admit that there might be some rare case where perpetratorsmight mount a successful defence. This is not because anyonerejects human rights but because even supremely important andinalienable rights can conflict. One person's right to dignitycollides with another person's right to life, and in spite ofevery precaution and after exhausting every alternative yousometimes have to make a choice.

The weapons issue is more complicated. I makea case for the use of non-lethal chemical weapons. There aremany instances in contemporary warfare where non-lethal weaponsmay cause considerably less harm than high explosives—and,yes, physicians . . . [Full text of this article]

Michael L Gross, professor

¹ Department of International Relations, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel mgross@poli.haifa.ac.il