Last year, I published an edited volume, Physicians at War: The Dual-Loyalties Challenge (Springer). This came out of my fellowship at the American Medical Association, where I was interested in the use of physicians in hostile interrogations. The book looks at how medical and non-medical spheres can collide, such as in times of war: imagine that physicians could serve the greater good while, at the same time, violating principles of medical ethics. What should they do? Are professional ethics abrogable in times of conflict, or do they always trump other ethical considerations? In addition to a general theoretical framework for this project, essays are about specific challenges: torture, weapons development, triage, and so on.
I wanted to post about the book now since three reviews have just come out of it, all well-written and in good journals. If you have thoughts on the project, please let me know. Also note that, while the hardback is expensive, Springer is rolling out a new plan for $25 on-campus copies; please check with your library regarding availability. And here are the reviews:
Review by Christian Enemark in Journal of Military Ethics 7.4 (2008): 320-322. Review by Michel Davis in Studies in Ethics, Law, and Technology 3.2 (2009): 1-4. Review by Jason Gatliff in Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 6.3 (2009): 391-392.
[…] argument. This understanding of professional goals is reiterated in other works, including that of Fritz Alhoff who writes, “If one considers the ethos of both the military and medicine, we find that this […]