Article Text
Abstract
Australia’s punitive policy towards people seeking asylum deliberately causes severe psychological harm and meets recognised definitions of torture. Consequently, there is a tension between doctors’ obligation not to be complicit in torture and doctors’ obligation to provide best possible care to their patients, including those seeking asylum. In this paper, we explore the nature of complicity and discuss the arguments for and against a proposed call for doctors to boycott working in immigration detention. We conclude that a degree of complicity is unavoidable when working in immigration detention, but that it may be ethically justifiable. We identify ways to minimise the harms associated with complicity and argue that it is ethical to continue working in immigration detention as long as due care and attention is paid to minimising the harms of complicity.
- torture and genocide
- applied and professional ethics
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Are healthcare professionals working in Australia's immigration detention centres condoning torture?
- Doctors should boycott working in Australia’s immigration centres and must continue to speak out on mistreatment of detainees—despite the law
- Should doctors boycott working in Australia’s immigration detention centres?
- Should clinicians boycott Australian immigration detention?
- Preventive detention: the ethical ground where politics and health meet. Focus on asylum seekers in Australia
- Is Australia engaged in torturing asylum seekers? A cautionary tale for Europe
- Dirty work: well-intentioned mental health workers cannot ameliorate harms in offshore detention
- Medical involvement in torture today?
- Nursing in asylum seeker detention in Australia: care, rights and witnessing
- Torture, healthcare and Australian immigration detention