The American journal of bioethics : AJOB
-
Case Reports Historical Article
Medical care for terrorists--to treat or not to treat?
With the escalation of terrorism worldwide in recent years, situations arise in which the perpetration of violence and the defense of human rights come into conflict, creating serious ethical problems. The Geneva Convention provides guidelines for the medical treatment of enemy wounded and sick, as well as prisoners of war. However, there are no comparable provisions for the treatment of terrorists, who can be termed unlawful combatants or unprivileged belligerents. ⋯ It is suggested that international legal and bioethical guidelines are required to define the role of the physician and auxiliary medical staff vis a vis injured terrorists. There are extreme situations where the perpetration of violence and the defense of human rights come into conflict, leading to serious ethical and psychological discord. Terrorists, using violence to create fear in order to further their political objectives, might require life-saving medical care if injured during the course of their terror activities.
-
This target article focuses on dynamics that arise in three typical ethically complex cases in which psychiatric consultations are requested by physicians: a dying patient refuses life-prolonging treatment, an uncooperative patient demands to be allowed to go outside and smoke, and an angry patient demands to be admitted to the hospital. The discussion canvasses what is at stake morally and clinically in each of these cases and explores clinician-patient interactions, dynamics in relationships between consulting physicians and consultant psychiatrists, patient transference, and physician countertransference. ⋯ The discussion also describes how legalism and countertransference adversely affect how clinicians treat their psychiatrist colleagues. Finally, the article suggests how the effects of legalism and countertransference can be mitigated.