Enhanced Interrogation, Consequential Evaluation, and Human Rights to Health

Benedict S. B. Chan*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articlepeer-review

1 Citation (Scopus)
86 Downloads (Pure)


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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)455–461
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Bioethical Inquiry
Issue number3
Early online date5 Jul 2019
Publication statusPublished - Sept 2019

Scopus Subject Areas

  • Health(social science)
  • Health Policy

User-Defined Keywords

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


Dive into the research topics of 'Enhanced Interrogation, Consequential Evaluation, and Human Rights to Health'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this