The United States Cover-up of Japanese Wartime Medical Atrocities: Complicity Committed in the National Interest and Two Proposals for Contemporary Action

To monopolize the scientific data gained by Japanese physicians and researchers from vivisections and other barbarous experiments performed on living humans in biological warfare programs such as Unit 731, immediately after the war the United States (US) government secretly granted those involved immunity from war crimes prosecution, withdrew vital information from the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, and publicly denounced otherwise irrefutable evidence from other sources such as the Russian Khabarovsk trial. Acting in “the national interest” and for the security of the US, authorities in the US tramped justice and morality, and engaged in what the English common law tradition clearly defines as “complicity after the fact.” To repair this historical injustice, the US government should issue an official apology and offer appropriate compensation for having covered up Japanese medical war crimes for six decades. To help prevent similar acts of aiding principal offender(s) in the future, international declarations or codes of human rights and medical ethics should include a clause banning any kind of complicity in any unethical medicine—whether before or after the fact—by any state or group for whatever reasons.     

Indecent Medicine: In Defense of the Absolute Prohibition against Physician Participation in Torture

In a recent article, Gross (2004) Gross, M. 2004. Doctors in the decent society: Torture, ill-treatment, and civic duty. Bioethics, 18(2): 181–203. [INFOTRIEVE][CSA][CROSSREF] [Google Scholar] argues that physicians in decent societies have a civic duty to aid in the torturing of suspected terrorists during emergency conditions. The argument presupposes a communitarian society in which considerations of common good override questions of individual rights, but it is also utilitarian. In the event that there is a ticking bomb and no other alternative available for defusing it, torture must be used, and physicians must play their part. In an earlier article, Jones (1980) Jones, G. 1980. On the permissibility of torture. Journal of Medical Ethics, 6: 11–13. [INFOTRIEVE][CSA] [Google Scholar] also argues in favour of physician participation in torture, going so far as to enthusiastically endorse the allocation of research resources as well to ensure that the ability to meet emergency situations is as efficient as scientifically possible. I argue against both these views and defend the absolute prohibition against torture generally, and against any participation by physicians in particular. I show that these arguments are incompatible with liberal or decent societies, and that the institutional requirements for making torture effective would constitute an unacceptable degradation both of medical ethics and practice, as well as of political institutions in general.     

Respect for People's Rights and Dignity

Summary

This article examines the nature and application of aspirational General Principle E (Respect for Peoples' Rights and Dignity) of the Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (American Psychological Association [APA], 2002) and similar principles in other mental health professional ethics codes. Issues about aspirational versus enforceable standards are reviewed. Case examples and illustrations of the principle are provided.     

Functions Served by Corporal Punishment: Adolescent Perspectives

This exploratory study investigated the functions served by corporal punishment as perceived by high school students in a developing country. A qualitative research design was used. Participants were a convenient sample of five high school students. Data were collected using the focus group interview technique. Results show that adolescents have contesting views on the functions served by corporal punishment in school. Adolescents' perspectives coalesced into three main conceptual spheres namely: hedonistic/sadistic, regulatory and instrumental functions. Teachers and other professionals, whose mandate is the welfare of adolescents, need to recognise the influence and importance of adolescent perspectives on functions served by corporal punishment.     

Identity,Incentives, and Religious Defense of Human Rights: Marshall Meyer and the DAIA in Argentina's Dirty War

Whether religious groups advance or limit human rights has been a topic of recent debate among human rights scholars. This article studies the conditions under which religious leaders advance human rights in the context of Argentina's Jewish community during the country's 1976–1983 military dictatorship. Three major influences on religious support for human rights—autonomy from a religious community's establishment, a missionary-reformer identity, and congregational mobilization—are highlighted. Original archival research from the papers of U.S.-born rabbi Marshall T. Meyer illustrates his defense of human rights in Argentina, contrasting his work with the inaction of a major established Jewish organization. Quantitative cross-national analysis extends the case study findings by showing a relationship between religious institutions’ autonomy from the state and defense of human rights.     

The Word was Not Made Flesh: Theological Reflections on the Banning of Seksualiti Merdeka 2011

Abstract : In November 2011, the Malaysian sexuality rights festival Seksualiti Merdeka was banned after being labelled immoral and subversive. The organizers insisted that the festival was a forum for the voices of sexual minorities and that the ban was politically motivated. By examining the rhetoric surrounding this festival in the Malaysian media, this article aims to uncover how the tensions between Malaysian politics and religion affect the lives of queer Malaysians in terms of human rights before providing a Christian theological response.     

Neuropsychology, neuroscience, volitional impairment and sexually violent predators: A review of the literature and the law and their application to civil commitment proceedings

The U.S. Supreme Court held in Kansas v. Crane, the person's mental abnormality or personality disorder must cause the individual to have “serious difficulty in controlling his sexual behavior,” rather than “total or complete lack of control.” While most state civil commitment statutes do not mandate this volitional impairment language relevant to loss of control, they instead incorporate the requirement of findings of “likely” or “likelihood” to reoffend. Yet in some of these state SVP hearings, the forensic mental health expert witnesses testify as to the offender's ability to control his sex offending behaviors. Occasionally, some of these experts are neuropsychologists and neurologists who testify about a sex offender's neurological and cognitive impairment resulting in sexually deviant behavior, volitional impairment, and likelihood of reoffending. This article's focus is to assess deviant sexual offending behaviors and volitional impairment through a neuropsychological and neurological lens. The author will provide an analysis of the literature as to the structural and functional neurocognitive processes of sex offending pertaining to neuropathology, neuropsychology, and neuroimaging data. The author will attempt to apply these findings to the legal requirements outlined in Crane necessitating commitment of sex offenders who experience some volitional impairment in their behaviors that lead them to be likely to sexually reoffend. The author will review state case law addressing neuroscience in SVP proceedings.     

Welfare Rights and Conflicts of Rights

The fact that welfare rights – rights to food, shelter and medical care – will conflict with one another is often taken to be good reason to exclude welfare rights from the catalogue of genuine rights. Rather than respond to this objection by pointing out that all rights conflict, welfare rights proponents need to take the conflicts objection seriously. The existence of potentially conflicting and more weighty normative considerations counts against a claim’s status as a genuine right. To think otherwise would be to threaten the peremptory force – and hence the analytical integrity – of rights. The conflicts objection is made more pressing once we have conceded that welfare rights give people entitlements to what are potentially scarce goods. I argue that welfare rights can survive the conflicts objection if, and only if, we take scarcity into account in the framing of a given welfare right. Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the Nuffield Political Theory Workshop in Oxford and the Canadian Philosophical Association Congress 2006 at York University. I am grateful to Adam Swift, David Miller, Idil Boran, Sarah McCallum and two anonymous referees for their comments, and to the Economic and Social Research Council for research funding.