BMA’s reply to Burns-Cox
BMJ 2011; 343 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d5794 (Published 13 September 2011) Cite this as: BMJ 2011;343:d5794
All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
It should not have taken a second letter from Dr Burns Cox to extract
further information that is of interest to the readership of the BMJ. The
original points raised by Dr Meyers and Dr Summerfield (1) are of
continuing concern and the initial response from the WMA extremely
worrying. Israel is not noted for a prompt or just resolution of
investigations into maltreatment of Palestinians. Maybe the BMJ newsteam
could update us on how things are progressing.
After that maybe the director of professional activities could lead a
BMA investigation into whether we want the BMA to be associated with the
WMA when these allegations of torture have not been addressed. Torture
whether by Americans, British, Israeli or Iranians must not go
unchallenged.
(1) the campaign about doctors and torture in Israel two years on BMJ
2011;339:d5223
Competing interests: I am concerned about the existence of, and the complicity of doctors in, torture whether in Guantanamo bay, in Basra by British forces or by the Israeli defence force
In its reply to the BMA's March 2010 letter, the WMA pointed out that
the allegations of medical complicity in torture went beyond a breach of
medical ethics and amounted to criminal allegations. On that basis, the
BMA's letter was passed directly to the IMA, which replied stating that it
recommended a criminal investigation. The IMA said that it was prepared to
support such an investigation into the allegations and stated that it
would take action against any physicians found guilty of involvement.
This is now a matter for criminal investigation within Israel.
Competing interests: No competing interests
I am grateful to Professor Vivienne Nathanson for her response.
She states the BMA did formally write to the World Medical Association
informing it of Israeli doctors involvement in torture.
Would she please tell us if this message was received and acknolwedged?
Would she please tell us what the reply from the WMA was and how the BMA
responded to it?
Without this information the matter is still unfinished business.
This information should give us the necessary trust in how the BMA
functions.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Re:Allegations a matter for criminal investigation
Professsor Vivienne Nathnson's latest letter informs us that the WMA
passed the BMA letter of 18 months ago to the Israeli Medical Association
which said it would investigate.
Did the WMA give a time scale for a full response from the IMA and indeed
what criminal investigations and court cases have followed? Are the
doctors still assisting in torture?
The WMA still has an unfinished duty in this affair and is the BMA
checking it is carrying it out? I am sure the BMA knows the track record
of Israeli investigation of crimes and so will be extra fastidious in
watching the WMA and IMA actions.
Two years ago the WMA refused even to acknowledge let alone act on
the facts placed repeatedly before it of Israeli doctors and torture. This
proved the organisation was failing in its duty. The BMA delayed writing
formally to the WMA and the activities of the BMA International Committee
remain secret.
It is not surprising that many of us find this matter still
unfinished business.
I hope Members of the BMA Council will investigate the secrecy policy
regarding the International Committee and doubtless other areas of its
complex organisation. How is this screcy justified?
People should not and will not trust organisations that function in or
indeed rely on secrecy.
Competing interests: No competing interests