The bioethics of Australia’s immigration detention policies
by Xavier Symons | 25 Jun 2016 |
Australia’s asylum seeker policies have been subject to intense international scrutiny, even in the world of bioethics. A paper published this week in the Journal of Medical Ethics questions whether Australia’s mandatory detention and operational security laws prevent medical professionals from fulfilling their ethical duties.
Specifically, the authors of the paper – Dr John Paul Sanggaran, of the University of New South Wales and Dr Deborah Zion, of Victoria University – argue that the Australian Boarder Force Act 2015 prevents healthcare professionals who are working in detention centres from reporting human rights abuses such as the torture of detainees. Sanggaran and Zion write,
There is a documented history of issues having been raised by medical practitioners working within the system for years without progress let alone resolution…Significantly, the lack of transparency and informally sanctioned breaches of ethical practice are now accompanied by new laws that explicitly prohibit medical and healthcare practitioners from reporting, other than through demonstrably failed internal channels.Healthcare workers, Sanggaran and Zion argue, are prevented from fulfilling basic ethical obligations to people in detention:
The role of doctors and other healthcare providers in detention is vital to maintaining any semblance of human rights, in particular the right to health, as other systems that uphold this right are absent… [Yet] Bearing witness by healthcare professionals presents a ‘dual loyalty’ conflict, whereby such persons are asked to subordinate the patient’s interests to the state or to their employer, thereby violating his or her human rights. The healthcare provider therefore finds him or herself in potential breach of a contractual obligation to remain silent.The suggestion among asylum seeker advocates like the authors of this paper is that the Australian government should ratify the UN’s Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (OPCAT). Part of this would involve the establishment of a National Preventative Mechanism (NPM) – a system of regular visits and reporting by independent bodies. NPM assessments, according to Sanggaran and Zion, “inform legislation and intervention, as well as act as deterrents in their own right. The transparency this provides should in and of itself act as a deterrent to human rights abuses.”
“What does Brexit mean for bioethics?” is our lead story today. Given that the Leavers were not expected to win and that the pundits have widely different views of the future of the politics and economies of the UK and the EU, it is unwise to be dogmatic on the issue.
However, the question highlights the importance of Britain in the world of bioethics. Britain is the home of utilitarianism, which is the dominant philosophy in bioethical discourse at the moment. The medical and scientific establishment is dominated by a utilitarian mindset which has set the agenda for debates on embryo research, stem cell research and assisted dying around the world. As one cynical writer commented, “when it comes to bioethics, Europe might be better off without Britain”.
There is something in this. Although I am handicapped by a big language barrier, my impression is that from Norway to Italy there is much more depth and diversity in bioethical discourse across the Channel. The Greens and the Christian Churches are much more influential, to say nothing of Continental philosophy, which despises utilitarianism as vacuous and naïve. If England (the pundits all agree that Scotland will secede) loses its biomedical industry to the EU, perhaps utilitarian bioethics will lose some of its funding and its influence. That would be no bad thing, I think.
******
Sorry, guys, but BioEdge will be taking a holiday during July. Our next issue will be in the first week of August.
Michael Cook
Editor
BioEdge
| This week in BioEdge | |
by Xavier Symons | Jun 25, 2016
Brexit may lead to significant changes in biomedical policy in the UKby Michael Cook | Jun 25, 2016
Oxford don tries living as a badger to expand his horizonsby Michael Cook | Jun 25, 2016
Fails to surface in the mediaby Xavier Symons | Jun 25, 2016
Australia’s asylum seeker policies have been subject to intense international scrutiny – even in the world of bioethics.by Michael Cook | Jun 25, 2016
Getting in touch with your inner earth mother goddessby Xavier Symons | Jun 25, 2016
A new UK Parliamentary Inquiry into conscientious objection was launched this month.by Xavier Symons | Jun 25, 2016
The American tabloid media was abuzz this week with news that a New York Mathematics Professor had fathered 22 children through informal sperm donation.by Michael Cook | Jun 25, 2016
A practical application of utilitarian theory spurned by the publicby Michael Cook | Jun 25, 2016
Confusing signals from China over stem cells and organ transplantsby Wesley J. Smith | Jun 21, 2016
A leading voice in American bioethics peers into the future in his new bookBioEdge
Suite 12A, Level 2 | 5 George St | North Strathfield NSW 2137 | Australia
Phone: +61 2 8005 8605
Mobile: 0422-691-615
Email: michael@bioedge.org
New Media Foundation | Level 2, 5 George St | North Strathfield NSW 2137 | AUSTRALIA | +61 2 8005 8605
.png)
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario