Medical ethics during armed conflicts: Dilemmas of a physician soldier

A Military Physician is expected to fulfill the dual role of a humane physician and a patriotic soldier. But both these professions are principally very different from each other, a soldier above all is supposed to have utmost loyalty towards his country and protect national security at all costs. Whereas a doctor has moral obligations towards his patients and is required to treat ill or wounded irrespective of caste, creed, or nationality. Military physicians bridge these two professions based on the principles of humanity, impartiality, and neutrality. The present paper attempts to explore the challenges faced by military physicians in adhering to professional ethos especially during an armed conflict and provides an overview of various regulations and declarations in vogue for guiding military physicians in times of ethical and obligatory dilemmas.

Forensic mental health professionals' perceptions of their dual loyalty conflict: findings from a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Mental health professionals (MHP) working in court-mandated treatment settings face ethical dilemmas due to their dual role in assuring their patient's well-being while guaranteeing the security of the population. Clear practical guidelines to support these MHPs' decision-making are lacking, amongst others, due to the ethical conflicts within this field. This qualitative interview study contributes to the much-needed empirical research on how MHPs resolve these ethical conflicts in daily clinical practice.

METHODS

31 MHPs working in court-mandated treatment settings were interviewed. The interviews were semi-structured and our in-depth analysis followed the thematic analysis approach.

RESULTS

We first outline how mental health professionals perceive their dual loyalty conflict and how they describe their affiliations with the medical and the justice system. Our findings indicate that this positioning was influenced by situational factors, drawing the MHPs at times closer to the caring or controlling poles. Second, our results illustrate how participating MHPs solve their dual loyalty conflict. Participants considered central to motivate the patient, to see the benefits of treatment and its goals. Further, transparent communication with patients and representatives of the justice system was highlighted as key to develop a trustful relationship with the patient and to manage the influences from the different players involved.

CONCLUSIONS

Even though individual positioning and opinions towards dealing with the influences of the justice system varied, the results of our research show that, in spite of varying positions, the underlying practice is not very different across participating MHPs. Several techniques that allow developing a high-quality therapeutic alliance with the patient are key elements of general psychotherapy. Transparency appears as the crucial factor when communicating with the patient and with representatives of the justice system. More specifically, patients need to be informed since the beginning of therapy about the limits of medical confidentiality. It is also recommended to develop guidelines that define the level of detailed information that should be disclosed when communicating with the authorities of the justice system.

Hepatitis C virus screening and treatment in Irish prisons from a governor and prison officer perspective - a qualitative exploration

BACKGROUND

Prisons are a key location to access Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) infected people who inject drugs (PWID). Prison health care structures are complex and optimising health care delivery to this high need, marginalised and underserved population remains challenging. Despite international guidelines recommending that prisons are a priority location for HCV screening and treatment levels of prisoner engagement in HCV care remain low. Competing priorities between security and healthcare is a key feature of prison health care. A collaborative approach to health care delivery in prisons can maximise the benefits for prisoners, staff and the wider community.

AIM

To identify the barriers and enablers to HCV screening and treatment in Irish prisons and inform the implementation of a HCV screening program within the Irish Prison Services (IPS).

METHODS

Qualitative study using focus group methodology underpinned by grounded theory.

RESULTS

The following themes emerged from the analysis: priority of safety and security, staffing and resources, concerns about personal risk, lack of knowledge, concerns around confidentiality, prisoners' fear of treatment and stigma, timing of screening, use of peer workers, in-reach hepatology and fibroscanning services. The primary role of prison security is to ensure the safety of staff and prisoners with a secondary but important supporting role in health care delivery. Maintaining adequate staffing levels and the provision of training and education were seen as priorities and impacted on prison officers' fear for personal safety and risk of HCV transmission. Opt-out screening and peer support workers had high levels of support among participants.

CONCLUSION

Upscaling HCV management in prisons requires an in-depth understanding of all barriers and facilitators to HCV screening and treatment. Engaging prison officers in the planning and delivery of health care initiatives is a key strategy to optimising the public health opportunity that prisons provides.

'From Defensive Paranoia to …Openness to Outside Scrutiny': Prison Medical Officers in England and Wales, 1979-86

This article examines how a branch of medicine based within the criminal justice system responded to a society which by the 1970s and 1980s was increasingly critical of the prison system and medical authority. The Prison Medical Service, responsible for the health care of prisoners in England and Wales, was criticised by prison campaigners and doctors alike for being unethical, isolated, secretive, and beholden to the interests of the Home Office rather than those of their patients. While prison doctors responded defensively to criticisms in the 1970s and 1980s, comparing their own standards of practice favourably with those found in the NHS, and arguing that doctors from outside would struggle to cope in the prison environment, by 1985 their attitudes had changed. Giving evidence to a House of Commons committee, prison doctors displayed a much greater willingness to discuss how the prison system made their work more difficult, and expressed a pronounced desire to engage openly with the rest of the profession to address these problems. The change of attitude partly reflects a desire by the Home Secretary William Whitelaw to make the Prison Service more open, and an acceptance of a need for greater accountability in medicine generally. Most important, however, was a greater interest in prison health care and appreciation of the difficulties of prison practice among the wider medical profession, encouraging prison doctors to speak out. This provides a case study of how a professional group could engage openly with criticisms of their work under favourable circumstances.