Department of Religion and Philosophy
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.
Enhanced interrogation, Torture Healthcare professionals, Consequential evaluation, Utilitarianism, Human rights to health
Source Publication Title
Link to Publisher's Edition
Chan, B. (2019). Enhanced Interrogation, Consequential Evaluation, and Human Rights to Health. Bioethical Inquiry, 16, 455-461. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-019-09927-z