TY - JOUR
T1 - Enhanced Interrogation, Consequential Evaluation, and Human Rights to Health
AU - Chan, Benedict S. B.
N1 - Funding Information:
Research related to this article has been funded by the Early Career Scheme from the University Grants Committee, Hong Kong S.A.R., China (No. 22611516) from January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2019. The project title is “A Philosophical Investigation of the Ethics of Human Rights to Health.” This article does not represent the official positions of the University Grants Committee or Hong Kong S.A.R. Government.
Publisher copyright:
© Journal of Bioethical Inquiry Pty Ltd. 2019
PY - 2019/9
Y1 - 2019/9
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - Consequential evaluation
KW - Enhanced interrogation
KW - Healthcare professionals
KW - Human rights to health
KW - Torture
KW - Utilitarianism
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85068881009&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s11673-019-09927-z
DO - 10.1007/s11673-019-09927-z
M3 - Journal article
C2 - 31278467
AN - SCOPUS:85068881009
SN - 1176-7529
VL - 16
SP - 455
EP - 461
JO - Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
JF - Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
IS - 3
ER -