Document Type

Journal Article

Department/Unit

Department of Religion and Philosophy

Language

English

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.

Keywords

Enhanced interrogation, Torture Healthcare professionals, Consequential evaluation, Utilitarianism, Human rights to health

Publication Date

7-5-2019

Source Publication Title

Bioethical Inquiry

Volume

16

Start Page

455

End Page

461

Publisher

Springer Verlag

DOI

10.1007/s11673-019-09927-z

Link to Publisher's Edition

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-019-09927-z

ISSN (print)

11767529

ISSN (electronic)

18724353

Share

COinS