This letter is written by the board of Physicians for Human Rights
Israel (PHR-Israel) as a response to the discussion of the role of the
Israeli Medical Association (IMA) regarding the occupation and Israel’s
serious violations of human rights in general and of the right health in
particular. Since PHR-Israel has not despaired of dialogue, we cannot
support a boycott, but rather wish to use this opportunity to publicly
address the World Medical Association (WMA) with a more basic question:
Does the WMA and the IMA (or any other national medical association) take
their role as leaders of the medical community seriously and not merely as
trade unions? If so, they must also take the principles of medical ethics
seriously. PHR-Israel believes that to be the inter/national medical
leadership is a serious duty, and thus we have high expectations of it.
This duty must be kept even in a society – like our own – who functions
under extreme anxiety, in a reality of constant threat of violence and
attacks on its civilians.
We therefore expect any national medical association to defend the
right of everyone to life and health, and thus:
When receiving evidence of unethical conduct of doctors, we would
expect them to speak in a clear voice and take action and not suffice in
waiting for more conclusive evidence to be collected by others.
When faced with 40 years of occupation where Israelis enjoy one of
the best medical systems in the world, while Palestinians can hardly
access their de-developed system, we would expect them to fight not for
humanitarian gestures, but for equality and access to Israeli healthcare
as part of Israeli responsibility as an occupier. Particularly for medical
services not available in Palestine.
When faced with shooting at ambulances, we would expect them to stand
fast by their colleagues and not look for justifications (“ambulances
carry arms”).
When faced with a system of more than 500 checkpoints and barriers
obstructing movement of patients and medical teams, we would expect them
to rebuke the system and not fight over the access of one patient, who was
lucky enough to reach the awareness of the media.
When faced with denial of infrastructure and water as method of
moving people from their lands, we would expect them to say: Enough, water
is a right and cannot be conditioned on obedience to unlawful policy.
When infrastructure is destroyed during armed conflict, we would
expect them to press their governments to rehabilitate it immediately.
When extreme poverty results from the deliberate destruction of the
economic infrastructure, we would expect them to make their stand clear as
to the dire results on Palestinians’ health and demand the end of this
policy.
When faced with a humanitarian crisis, we would expect them to lead a
struggle for changing the policy that causes it, at least regarding the
health issues.
Presenting the positive actions of members of the Israeli medical
community as if they (IMA) had initiated them, is unfair conduct.
Presenting the granting of movement permits by the security system for
patients to reach medical centers as a positive move, is to willfully
misunderstand that the mere need for a permit is the problem. Even in
times of conflicts, security arrangements must and can be provided to
allow rapid passage of patients and medical teams.
The IMA’s uncompromising position for ethical conduct in the case of
a Palestinian patient under threat of eviction from hospital is a light in
a dark place and a good example of what we would expect from a national
medical association.
In our region, as in others, conflict and violence endanger the lives
of both peoples. This is a serious issue that demands a constant struggle.
Silence is a luxury medical associations cannot afford.
All these expectations are grounded in numerous ethical guidelines,
some of which are on the WMA website. We take them seriously. Do the WMA,
IMA and other national medical associations do the same?
Competing interests:
The authors are the board of PHR Israel, and its executive director. The board are also members of the Israeli medical community.
Rapid Response:
Do We Take Ethics Seriously?
This letter is written by the board of Physicians for Human Rights
Israel (PHR-Israel) as a response to the discussion of the role of the
Israeli Medical Association (IMA) regarding the occupation and Israel’s
serious violations of human rights in general and of the right health in
particular. Since PHR-Israel has not despaired of dialogue, we cannot
support a boycott, but rather wish to use this opportunity to publicly
address the World Medical Association (WMA) with a more basic question:
Does the WMA and the IMA (or any other national medical association) take
their role as leaders of the medical community seriously and not merely as
trade unions? If so, they must also take the principles of medical ethics
seriously. PHR-Israel believes that to be the inter/national medical
leadership is a serious duty, and thus we have high expectations of it.
This duty must be kept even in a society – like our own – who functions
under extreme anxiety, in a reality of constant threat of violence and
attacks on its civilians.
We therefore expect any national medical association to defend the
right of everyone to life and health, and thus:
When receiving evidence of unethical conduct of doctors, we would
expect them to speak in a clear voice and take action and not suffice in
waiting for more conclusive evidence to be collected by others.
When faced with 40 years of occupation where Israelis enjoy one of
the best medical systems in the world, while Palestinians can hardly
access their de-developed system, we would expect them to fight not for
humanitarian gestures, but for equality and access to Israeli healthcare
as part of Israeli responsibility as an occupier. Particularly for medical
services not available in Palestine.
When faced with shooting at ambulances, we would expect them to stand
fast by their colleagues and not look for justifications (“ambulances
carry arms”).
When faced with a system of more than 500 checkpoints and barriers
obstructing movement of patients and medical teams, we would expect them
to rebuke the system and not fight over the access of one patient, who was
lucky enough to reach the awareness of the media.
When faced with denial of infrastructure and water as method of
moving people from their lands, we would expect them to say: Enough, water
is a right and cannot be conditioned on obedience to unlawful policy.
When infrastructure is destroyed during armed conflict, we would
expect them to press their governments to rehabilitate it immediately.
When extreme poverty results from the deliberate destruction of the
economic infrastructure, we would expect them to make their stand clear as
to the dire results on Palestinians’ health and demand the end of this
policy.
When faced with a humanitarian crisis, we would expect them to lead a
struggle for changing the policy that causes it, at least regarding the
health issues.
Presenting the positive actions of members of the Israeli medical
community as if they (IMA) had initiated them, is unfair conduct.
Presenting the granting of movement permits by the security system for
patients to reach medical centers as a positive move, is to willfully
misunderstand that the mere need for a permit is the problem. Even in
times of conflicts, security arrangements must and can be provided to
allow rapid passage of patients and medical teams.
The IMA’s uncompromising position for ethical conduct in the case of
a Palestinian patient under threat of eviction from hospital is a light in
a dark place and a good example of what we would expect from a national
medical association.
In our region, as in others, conflict and violence endanger the lives
of both peoples. This is a serious issue that demands a constant struggle.
Silence is a luxury medical associations cannot afford.
All these expectations are grounded in numerous ethical guidelines,
some of which are on the WMA website. We take them seriously. Do the WMA,
IMA and other national medical associations do the same?
Competing interests:
The authors are the board of PHR Israel, and its executive director. The board are also members of the Israeli medical community.
Competing interests: No competing interests