Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
Published in: Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 3/2019

01-09-2019 | Critical Response

Enhanced Interrogation, Consequential Evaluation, and Human Rights to Health

Author: Benedict S. B. Chan

Published in: Journal of Bioethical Inquiry | Issue 3/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Balfe argues against enhanced interrogation. He particularly focuses on the involvement of U.S. healthcare professionals in enhanced interrogation. He identifies several empirical and normative factors and argues that they are not good reasons to morally justify enhanced interrogation. I argue that his argument can be improved by making two points. First, Balfe considers the reasoning of those healthcare professionals as utilitarian. However, careful consideration of their ideas reveals that their reasoning is consequential rather than utilitarian evaluation. Second, torture is a serious human rights abuse. When healthcare professionals become involved in enhanced interrogation, they violate not only human rights against torture but also human rights to health. Considering the consequential reasoning against human rights abuses, healthcare professionals’ involvement in enhanced interrogation is not morally justified. Supplementing Balfe’s position with these two points makes his argument more complete and convincing, and hence it can contribute to the way which shows that enhanced interrogation is not justified by consequential evaluation.
Footnotes
1
As Sen (2000) mentions, his view is about consequential evaluation, which is “seen as the discipline of responsible choice based on the chooser's evaluation of states of affairs, including consideration of all the relevant consequences viewed in the light of the exact circumstances of that choice” (477). And he also thinks whether “consequential evaluation should be called by the name ‘consequentialism’ or not is a subsidiary and rather uninteresting issue” (477–478). For simplicity, I use these two terms “consequential evaluation” and “consequentialism” interchangeably in this paper.
 
2
For simplicity, the version I discuss here is the classical utilitarianism (i.e., hedonist utilitarianism). A particular important point is that the classical utilitarianism assumes that happiness means pleasure, which means it identifies the good with pleasure. For other versions of utilitarianism (especially a comparison between hedonist utilitarianism and preference utilitarianism), see Lazari-Radek and Singer (2014, 200–284; 2017, 42–52).
 
3
Both Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights state: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
 
Literature
Allhoff, F. 2012. Terrorism, ticking time-bombs, and torture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Annas, G., and M. Grodin., eds. 1995. The Nazi doctors and the Nuremberg code. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Balfe, M. 2016. Why did U.S. healthcare professionals become involved in torture during the war on terror? Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 13(3): 449–460.PubMed
Chan, B.S.B. 2014. A human rights debate on physical security, political liberty, and the Confucian tradition. Dao: A Journal of Comparative Philosophy 13(4): 567–588.
Chan, B.S.B. 2015. Do economic rights conflict with political rights? An east and west cultural debate. In Conflict and harmony in comparative philosophy, edited by A.B. Creller, 139-–147. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Chan, B.S.B. 2019a. East Asia: Challenges to political rights. In Routledge handbook of development ethics, edited by J. Drydyk and L. Keleher, 382-–386. New York: Routledge.
Chan, B.S.B. 2019b. Are international human rights universal? East-west philosophical debates on human rights to liberty and health. In Metaphysics of human rights 1948-2018: On the occasion of the 70th anniversary of the UDHR, edited by L. Di Donato and E. Grimi, 135-152. Malaga, Spain: Vernon Press.
Daniels, N. 1985. Just health care. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Daniels, N. 2007. Just health. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Finnis, J. 2011. Natural law and natural rights, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Griffin, J. 2008. On human rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gordon, N. and R. Marton. 1995. Torture: Human rights, medical ethics and the case of Israel. London: Zed Books
Harris, S. 2002. Factories of death: Japanese biological warfare, 1932–1945 and the American cover-up, 2nd ed. New York: Routledge.
Hausman, D. 2015a. The value of health. In The Oxford handbook of value theory, eds. I. Hirose and J. Olson, 338–355. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Hausman, D. 2015b. Valuing health: Well-being, freedom, and suffering. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Lazari-Radek, K., and P. Singer. 2014. The point of view of the universe: Sidgwick and contemporary ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lazari-Radek, K., and P. Singer. 2017. Utilitarianism: A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Li, X. 2006. Ethics, human rights and culture. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Lifton, R. 1988. The Nazi doctors: Medical killing and the psychology of genocide. New York: Basic Books.
Lifton, R. 2004. Doctors and torture. New England Journal of Medicine 351(5): 415–416.PubMed
Luban, D. 2009. Unthinking the ticking bomb. In Global basic rights, edited by C. Beitz and R. Goodin, 181–206. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Macklin, R. 2007. Global health. In The Oxford handbook of bioethics, edited by B. Steinbock, 696–720. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Murphy, T., and P. Johnson. 2004. Torture and human rights. Virtual Mentor 6(9): 420–423.
Nickel, J. 2007. Making sense of human rights, 2nd ed. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Nozick, R. 1974. Anarchy, state, and utopia. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Parfit, D. 1984. Reasons and persons. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Reis, A., L. Amowitz, L. Kushner, A. Kushner, M. Elahi, and V. Lacopino. 2004. Physician participation in human rights abuse in southern Iraq. JAMA 291(12): 1480–1486.PubMed
Ruger, J. 2010. Health and social justice. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Scanlon, T. 1998. What we owe to each other. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Scheffler, S. 1994. The rejection of consequentialism, revised edition. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Sen, A. 1979. Utilitarianism and welfarism. Journal of Philosophy 76(9): 463–489.
Sen, A. 1982. Rights and agency. Philosophy and Public Affairs 11(1): 3–39.
Sen, A. 1992. Inequality reexamined. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Sen, A. 2000. Consequential evaluation and practical reason. The Journal of Philosophy 97(9): 477–502.
Shue, H. 1978. Torture. Philosophy & Public Affairs 7(2): 124–143.
Shue, H. 1996. Basic rights: Subsistence, affluence, and U.S. foreign policy, 2nd ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Shue, H. 2006. Torture in dreamland: Disposing of the ticking bomb. Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law 37(2/3): 231–239.
Talbott, W. 2010. Human rights and human well-being. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Walzer, M. 1987. Interpretation and social criticism: The Tanner lectures on human values 1985. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Walzer, M. 1994. Thick and thin: Moral argument at home and abroad. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
Williams, B. 1973. A critique of utilitarianism. In Utilitarianism: For and against, edited by J.J.C. Smart and B. Williams, 77–150. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Venkatapuram, S. 2011. Health justice. Malden, MA: Polity.
Wolff, J. 2011. The human rights to health. In Global health and global health ethics, edited by S. Benatar and G. Brock, 108–118. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wolff, J. 2012. The human rights to health. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company.
Metadata
Title
Enhanced Interrogation, Consequential Evaluation, and Human Rights to Health
Author
Benedict S. B. Chan
Publication date
01-09-2019
Publisher
Springer Singapore
Published in
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry / Issue 3/2019
Print ISSN: 1176-7529
Electronic ISSN: 1872-4353
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-019-09927-z

Other articles of this Issue 3/2019

Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 3/2019 Go to the issue

Recent Developments

Clarifying legal tests: Who a parent is and how to warn of unknown risks

Symposium: Cross-Cultural Bioethics – Editorial

A Journey Through Global Bioethics

Original Research

Maqasid al-Shariah Based Islamic Bioethics: A Comprehensive Approach

Original Research

Pride Before a Fall: Shame, Diagnostic Crossover, and Eating Disorders

Original Research

Design and Validation of an Instrument To Measure a Minor's Maturity When Faced with Health Decisions

Book Review

What Is Enough? Sufficiency, Justice, and Health