Rapid Responses to:
|
|
Rapid Responses: Rapid Responses published:
-
![[Read Rapid Response]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif)
Jewish Chronicle: "Torture Expert Claims Israeli Doctors were 'Complicit'"
- Brian Robinson (29 June 2009)
-
World Medical Association and BMJ
- Stephanie A Amiel (30 June 2009)
-
Re: World Medical Association and BMJ
- Brian Robinson (5 July 2009)
-
Medical representative organisations and human rights
- Peter L Hall (4 September 2009)
|
|
|||
|
Brian Robinson, Retired former NHS psychiatrist N/A
Send response to journal:
|
With reference to Zosia Kmietowicz's report, as a signatory to the letter referred to, I should like to draw attention to a report in the Jewish Chronicle dated 25 June 2009. This report was headlined as in the title for this Rapid Response and may be read at: http://www.thejc.com/articles/torture-expert-claims-israeli- doctors-were-complicit%E2%80%99 which is:- http://tinyurl.com/meldjd As many members will know, Dr. Ishai Menuchin, featured in the story, was the recipient, in 2003, of the Oscar Romero Award— http://www.rothkochapel.org/Oscar%20Romero%20Past%20Recipients.htm ("To persons or organizations who distinguish themselves by their courage and integrity in defense of human rights). Dr Menuchin is Executive Director of 'The Public Committee against Torture in Israel' (PCATI), a lecturer in the Department of Social Work at Ben Gurion University of the Negev, and also Director of the Jerusalem Spinoza Institute. He was one of the first 'refuseniks' of the 1st Lebanon War and co- founded 'Yesh Gvul' ('There is a limit'—a soldiers' 'refusal to serve' movement. He has published many papers on issues related to democracy, civil disobedience and selective refusal, and edited three books on the same topics. (See http://tinyurl.com/mjujnl) The Chronicle news item states: '[Dr Menuchin] criticised both the Israeli legal system and the supervising doctors “who sit back and allow torture to go unchecked”'. And: “There’s no public control of the secret services. Their level of legal protection gives them almost total legal immunity. The names of interrogators are often not recorded and they are not questioned about the methods that they use.” The Chronicle continues: 'Later, he claimed that his organisation had evidence of “five or six” doctors who have been “complicit” in torture since 2007'. Kmietowicz reports the BMA as stating that the information on the alleged use of torture involving Israeli doctors is "imperfect and contested". Contested it no doubt is, but there is a mountain of scrupulously documented evidence from such highly regarded organisations as Amnesty, B'Tselem, Defence for Children International (Palestine Section), Physicians for Human Rights Israel, and PCATI itself, all attesting to the occurrence of torture as alleged. From previous correspondence, to my certain knowledge the BMJ accepts the evidence at least of Amnesty. So surely now the BMA must issue a public statment as to where it stands. The BMA is quoted as stating: 'Dr Blachar’s position as joint president of the World Medical Association and the Israeli Medical Association is a difficult one, [but] in our view he has made authoritative statements, as president of both organisations, calling on the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) and any doctors operating under the IDF’s remit to respect international ethical standards'. Of what use are statements, however authoritative, if they don't stop the torture? Competing interests: Signatory, Statement of Jews for Justice for Palestinians; Founder member, UK chapter of the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Stephanie A Amiel, Professor of Diabetic Medicine King's College London SE5 9NU
Send response to journal:
|
Dear Editor, With reference to BMJ 2009: 338:b2556 May we hope that the fact that nearly 3000 people have signed a petition in support of Dr Blachar's Presidency of the World Medical Association will receive as prominent coverage of your article saying that more than 700 doctors opposed it, or does that run counter to BMJ editorial policy? Yours faithfully, Stephanie A Amiel, BSc, MD, FRCP
Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Brian Robinson, Retired NHS psychiatrist N/A
Send response to journal:
|
Prof Amiel tells us, above, that "nearly 3000 people have signed a petition in support of Dr Blachar's Presidency of the World Medical Association" but that does not give us answers to the questions that the BMA must ask. It’s worth reviewing briefly what the nub of this argument is about and I’d like to quote from the relevant pages on the WMA website, starting here: <http://www.wma.net/e/history/tokio.htm> (Zosia Kmietowicz has already quoted Prof Meyers on some of this in her story, (BMJ 2009;338:b2556 or <http://tinyurl.com/lnnknx> ), but please bear with me for a moment.) “Early in 1974, [the BMA] notified the WMA about medical aspects of torture with special reference to happenings in Northern Ireland. ... The BMA [suggested] that the wider issues … should be discussed by the WMA … [whose] Council ... [then] prepare[d] a draft statement which was sent to the Tokyo Assembly where it was unanimously adopted. ... The Tokyo Declaration has not been revised since its adoption in 1975.” The Declaration that resulted can be read in full here <http://www.wma.net/e/policy/c18.htm> It’s quite short and worth re-reading in full because it indicates the sorts of questions that I believe the BMA ought to be asking of the WMA, the IMA, Dr Blachar in his official capacities and, not least indeed, of itself. I might add that whatever I write here in respect of the Israeli authorities applies equally to any country using similar interrogation methods. This is not about singling out one country, Israel, for censure, nor should it be about subjective opinions on the basis of personal affiliations: it is about an objective evaluation of carefully collected evidence by respected human rights organisations, subjecting that evidence to scrutiny, and making a judgement that will itself bear the closest examination. I have seen nothing to date to indicate that the BMA has carried out such an evaluation and that is why I believe that it is simply not good enough for our Association merely to refer to this evidence as “imperfect and contested information” (Kmietowicz, loc cit). So let us look again at a few phrases from “The World Medical Association Declaration of Tokyo: Guidelines for Physicians Concerning Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in Relation to Detention and Imprisonment” “It is the privilege of the physician to practise medicine in the service of humanity … The utmost respect for human life is to be maintained even under threat, and no use made of any medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity.” “For the purpose of this Declaration, torture is defined as the deliberate, systematic or wanton infliction of physical or mental suffering by one or more persons acting alone or on the orders of any authority, to force another person to yield information, to make a confession, or for any other reason.” In passing, we may note the phrase “physical or mental suffering” and that there is no such exculpatory qualification as, for example, “except in cases where ‘moderate physical pressure’ may be justified”. “The physician shall not countenance, condone or participate in the practice of torture [&c] … in all situations, including armed conflict and civil strife.” “The physician shall not be present during any procedure during which torture [&c] is used or threatened. … “[T]he physician's fundamental role is to alleviate the distress of … fellow human beings, and no motive … shall prevail against this higher purpose.” And consider this, with regard to whistle-blowers and ‘refuseniks’: “The World Medical Association will support, and should encourage the international community, the National Medical Associations and fellow physicians to support, the physician and his or her family in the face of threats or reprisals resulting from a refusal to condone the use of torture or other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.” [The WMA online page is dated 20.05.2006] And the following is especially apposite to the matters under discussion: “[A] breach of the Geneva Conventions shall in any case be reported by the physician to relevant authorities.” Has the BMA satisfied itself, on the basis of a full examination of all the evidence, that no breach of the Geneva Conventions has taken place by Israeli doctors? If the BMA is not so satisfied, i.e. if there are well established reasons for believing that there have been any such breaches, and furthermore if there is evidence that the IMA knew that there had been, is the BMA aware that these were “reported by the physician to relevant authorities”? (It should go without saying that the IMA, under the terms of the Tokyo Declaration, would be under an obligation to report alleged involvement in interrogation/torture proceedings whether the allegations were made against doctors who were members of the IMA or not.) So what is this evidence? There is far too much of it to cite here, so I shall refer to mainly one, a report that was published in May 2007 by the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel (PCATI), entitled “Ticking bombs: testimonies of torture victims in Israel”. This contained testimonies from nine Palestinian interrogatees, all prisoners held by the Israeli Security and Prison Services, and it named medical personnel as being involved in their management. The report can be read in English at <http://www.stoptorture.org.il/en/node/69> (accessed June 30, 2009) According to a recent Comment piece in the Lancet, “the Israeli Medical Association has not responded to this report, and has not investigated the six doctors who are members” Yudkin JS. The responsibilities of the World Medicine Association President. Lancet 2009; 373: 1155-1157, available on line at <http://tinyurl.com/btam73> (accessed June 30, 2009) I have heard, anecdotally, that the IMA has claimed to have carried out an investigation, but I have also heard, anecdotally, that this investigation consisted, allegedly, of not much more than a conversation between a representative of the IMA ethics committee and some of the doctors named. Is the BMA satisfied that the IMA did indeed carry out investigations in accordance with its commitment to medical ethical principles? If so, is the BMA willing to publish details of assurances it has received in connection with this and to say why precisely it accepts, if it does, those assurances? In his Comment, Yudkin (op cit) wrote*: “It would seem unthinkable that Israeli doctors could condone attacks on health-care facilities or medical involvement in torture, so the Israeli Medical Association should be prepared to speak out, rather than appearing to neglect its humanitarian leadership role. Such an action might help divert calls for a boycott of the Association”. He concluded: “Without the tacit connivance of the medical profession, the [Israeli] General Security Services, the Defence Force, and the State would find it difficult to continue with policies, including torture* (even of children*) and denying patients access to health care*. Such a move would require a bold step, but one which could secure [Dr] Blachar’s place in history as a leader prepared to stand firmly for international humanitarian law, rather than one whose Association rationalises actions which are clearly unacceptable”. In conclusion I submit that the BMA must now press the IMA to investigate properly the PCATI report findings on torture. And should not the BMA investigate thoroughly the allegation that the IMA’s stance as it currently appears contravenes the Tokyo Declaration? ----------------------------------------------------------- *(I include below Yudkin’s references for these paragraphs, although the PHR-I document, which I was able to read online last March, appears to have moved, as the link given no longer accesses it. But PHR-I can be accessed here: <http://tinyurl.com/mthg4m> — BR.) Physicians for Human Rights-Israel. Holding health to ransom: GSS interrogation and extortion of Palestinian patients at the Erez Crossing. August, 2008. http://www.phr.org.il/phr/fi les/articlefile_1217866249125. pdf (accessed Feb 18, 2009) Public Committee Against Torture in Israel. Ticking bombs: testimonies of torture victims in Israel. May, 2007. http://www.stoptorture.org.il/fi les/ 140%5B1%5D.pdf (accessed Feb 18, 2009) Defence for Children International, Palestine section. Israeli military continues to torture Palestinian children. June 26, 2008. http://www.dci- pal. org/english/display.cfm?DocId=798&CategoryId=1 (accessed Feb 18, 2009). Competing interests: Signatory, Statement, Jews for Justice for Palestinians; Founder member, Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions, UK branch |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Peter L Hall, Chair Pasque Hospice LU3 3NT
Send response to journal:
|
The Israeli Medical Association (IMA) has severed ties with Physicians for Human Rights Israel (PHR-I), ending a productive collaboration between the two organisations that facilitated healthcare for Palestinians. Initially the chairman of the IMA, Dr Blachar, denounced PHR-I for teaching first aid to anti-security wall protesters in the West Bank village of Bili'in, and accused them of being a political group disguised as a medical organisation (1). The people of Bili'in have been cut off from their lands by the Israeli security wall. It is now over five years since the International Court of Justice ruled as illegal Israel’s building of its wall through the West Bank, at the same time reaffirming the binding decisions of the U.N. Security Council on the status of the Occupied Territories and the application to them of the internationally accepted Geneva Conventions (2). Dr Blachar justified the boycott by citing the 2009 BMA Annual Representatives Meeting debate on Israeli doctors' role in torture, as an example of PHR-I’s activities serving as 'fertile ground for anti- Semitism, anti-Israelism and anti-Zionism'. (3) Shooting the messenger is hardly new, but so clearly is it Israel's illegal forty two year subjugation of the Palestinian people that fuels such sentiments, rather than the work of humane and courageous Jewish civil society organisations like PHR-I which excite admiration - his claim is Orwellian in its misrepresentation. As PHR-I explained "By not opposing the occupation, it is Blachar who is taking a political stand while claiming to be apolitical." In truth the IMA's insouciance in the face of decades of Israeli state sponsored violations of Palestinian rights under binding international law, resembles nothing so much a that of the Medical Association of South Africa during the apartheid years. 1. Liphshiz C. Top doctor slams group's first aid course for West Bank protestors. Haaretz 11/7/09 http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1099324.html 2. International Court of Justice. Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Advisory Opinion of 9 July 2004. http://www.icj- cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=4&k=5a&case=131&code=mwp&p3=4 3. Blachar Y. Letter to doctors who are members of PHR-Israel. 21 July 2009. http://azvsas.blogspot.com/2009/08/israel-medical-association- defends.html Competing interests: Peter Hall was a co-author of ‘False Dawn - Palestinian health and human rights under siege in the Peace Process‘ |
|||