National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: Front Matter
Suggested Citation:"Summary." Institute of Medicine. 2009. Military Medical Ethics: Issues Regarding Dual Loyalties: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12478.
×
Page 1
Suggested Citation:"Summary." Institute of Medicine. 2009. Military Medical Ethics: Issues Regarding Dual Loyalties: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12478.
×
Page 2
Suggested Citation:"Summary." Institute of Medicine. 2009. Military Medical Ethics: Issues Regarding Dual Loyalties: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12478.
×
Page 3
Suggested Citation:"Summary." Institute of Medicine. 2009. Military Medical Ethics: Issues Regarding Dual Loyalties: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12478.
×
Page 4
Suggested Citation:"Summary." Institute of Medicine. 2009. Military Medical Ethics: Issues Regarding Dual Loyalties: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12478.
×
Page 5
Suggested Citation:"Summary." Institute of Medicine. 2009. Military Medical Ethics: Issues Regarding Dual Loyalties: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12478.
×
Page 6
Suggested Citation:"Summary." Institute of Medicine. 2009. Military Medical Ethics: Issues Regarding Dual Loyalties: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12478.
×
Page 7
Suggested Citation:"Summary." Institute of Medicine. 2009. Military Medical Ethics: Issues Regarding Dual Loyalties: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12478.
×
Page 8
Suggested Citation:"Summary." Institute of Medicine. 2009. Military Medical Ethics: Issues Regarding Dual Loyalties: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12478.
×
Page 9
Suggested Citation:"Summary." Institute of Medicine. 2009. Military Medical Ethics: Issues Regarding Dual Loyalties: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12478.
×
Page 10
Suggested Citation:"Summary." Institute of Medicine. 2009. Military Medical Ethics: Issues Regarding Dual Loyalties: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12478.
×
Page 11
Suggested Citation:"Summary." Institute of Medicine. 2009. Military Medical Ethics: Issues Regarding Dual Loyalties: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12478.
×
Page 12
Suggested Citation:"Summary." Institute of Medicine. 2009. Military Medical Ethics: Issues Regarding Dual Loyalties: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12478.
×
Page 13
Suggested Citation:"Summary." Institute of Medicine. 2009. Military Medical Ethics: Issues Regarding Dual Loyalties: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12478.
×
Page 14
Suggested Citation:"Summary." Institute of Medicine. 2009. Military Medical Ethics: Issues Regarding Dual Loyalties: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12478.
×
Page 15
Suggested Citation:"Summary." Institute of Medicine. 2009. Military Medical Ethics: Issues Regarding Dual Loyalties: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12478.
×
Page 16
Suggested Citation:"Summary." Institute of Medicine. 2009. Military Medical Ethics: Issues Regarding Dual Loyalties: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12478.
×
Page 17
Suggested Citation:"Summary." Institute of Medicine. 2009. Military Medical Ethics: Issues Regarding Dual Loyalties: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12478.
×
Page 18
Suggested Citation:"Summary." Institute of Medicine. 2009. Military Medical Ethics: Issues Regarding Dual Loyalties: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12478.
×
Page 19
Suggested Citation:"Summary." Institute of Medicine. 2009. Military Medical Ethics: Issues Regarding Dual Loyalties: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12478.
×
Page 20
Suggested Citation:"Summary." Institute of Medicine. 2009. Military Medical Ethics: Issues Regarding Dual Loyalties: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12478.
×
Page 21
Suggested Citation:"Summary." Institute of Medicine. 2009. Military Medical Ethics: Issues Regarding Dual Loyalties: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12478.
×
Page 22
Suggested Citation:"Summary." Institute of Medicine. 2009. Military Medical Ethics: Issues Regarding Dual Loyalties: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12478.
×
Page 23
Suggested Citation:"Summary." Institute of Medicine. 2009. Military Medical Ethics: Issues Regarding Dual Loyalties: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12478.
×
Page 24
Suggested Citation:"Summary." Institute of Medicine. 2009. Military Medical Ethics: Issues Regarding Dual Loyalties: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12478.
×
Page 25
Suggested Citation:"Summary." Institute of Medicine. 2009. Military Medical Ethics: Issues Regarding Dual Loyalties: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12478.
×
Page 26
Suggested Citation:"Summary." Institute of Medicine. 2009. Military Medical Ethics: Issues Regarding Dual Loyalties: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12478.
×
Page 27
Suggested Citation:"Summary." Institute of Medicine. 2009. Military Medical Ethics: Issues Regarding Dual Loyalties: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12478.
×
Page 28
Suggested Citation:"Summary." Institute of Medicine. 2009. Military Medical Ethics: Issues Regarding Dual Loyalties: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12478.
×
Page 29
Suggested Citation:"Summary." Institute of Medicine. 2009. Military Medical Ethics: Issues Regarding Dual Loyalties: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12478.
×
Page 30
Suggested Citation:"Summary." Institute of Medicine. 2009. Military Medical Ethics: Issues Regarding Dual Loyalties: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12478.
×
Page 31
Suggested Citation:"Summary." Institute of Medicine. 2009. Military Medical Ethics: Issues Regarding Dual Loyalties: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12478.
×
Page 32
Suggested Citation:"Summary." Institute of Medicine. 2009. Military Medical Ethics: Issues Regarding Dual Loyalties: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12478.
×
Page 33
Suggested Citation:"Summary." Institute of Medicine. 2009. Military Medical Ethics: Issues Regarding Dual Loyalties: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12478.
×
Page 34
Suggested Citation:"Summary." Institute of Medicine. 2009. Military Medical Ethics: Issues Regarding Dual Loyalties: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12478.
×
Page 35
Suggested Citation:"Summary." Institute of Medicine. 2009. Military Medical Ethics: Issues Regarding Dual Loyalties: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12478.
×
Page 36

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

SUMMARY1 This report summarizes the proceedings of a one-day workshop, “Military Medical Ethics: Issues Regarding Dual Loyalties,” convened by the Institute of Medicine on September 8, 2008. The purpose of the workshop was to examine ethical challenges for physicians and other health professionals serving in the military that arise from conflicts be- tween their responsibilities to patients and their duties as military offi- cers. Dual loyalties exist in many medical fields, from occupational health to public health. Military health professionals, as all health profes- sionals, are ethically responsible for their patients’ well-being. In some situations, however, military health professionals can face ethical ten- sions between responsibilities to individual patients and responsibilities to military operations. Indeed, everyone has conflicting allegiances, partly as a matter of choice and partly as a matter of chance. Because dual loyalties involve multiple responsibilities that are not usually laid out in parallel or made to reinforce each other, moments of tension arise between them. The workshop proceeded from the premise that such conflicts are best brought to light and discussed by military and civilian leaders rather than relegated to individuals to cope with them alone in situations of stress. 1 The planning committee’s role was limited to planning the workshop, and the work- shop summary has been prepared by the workshop rapporteurs as a factual summary of what occurred at the workshop. 1

2 MILITARY MEDICAL ETHICS: ISSUES REGARDING DUAL LOYALTIES To illustrate how dual loyalties can influence decisions of U.S. mili- tary health care providers, two case studies were presented based on cir- cumstances that a provider might encounter in the military setting. Decisions regarding whether to return an injured servicemember to duty after a closed head injury, despite the risk of greater harm, offered the situations for the first case study. Return-to-duty decisions are replete with unintended consequences, ranging from impacts on a soldier’s (or disabled veteran’s) compensation to effects on the morale and overall performance of the individual and the fighting unit. One consideration in these decisions is that there are opportunities in military service to return a servicemember to duty on a trial basis with the potential for change of duty or evacuation as needed. Dual loyalty situations, with some relevant similarities, exist in oc- cupational medicine and sports medicine. In occupational medicine, par- ticularly in small corporations, where the physician or nurse reports directly to corporate executives, an injured employee’s desire to return to work in order to obtain full benefits may conflict with corporate produc- tivity goals. In sports medicine, a triad of decision makers—physician, coach, and athlete—typically make a joint decision, based on a full as- sessment of risks and benefits offered by the physician. Treating detainees in ethically charged circumstances, such as a hun- ger strike, provided the situations for the second case study. International declarations require physicians to respect the autonomy of hunger strik- ers, who may have no other recourse to protest conditions of confine- ment. The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) policy of beneficence would permit force-feeding to save a prisoner’s life. In the civilian world, physicians working in correctional facilities have found it impor- tant to earn prisoners’ trust and to use that trust to defuse potential crises by seeking alternatives, such as transferring the striking prisoner to an- other health facility. The hunger strike case study showed that two factors are fundamen- tally important in ethical decision making: the presence of organizational resources to help physicians manage ethical quandaries without having to resort to heroic tactics, and the recognition of the particular and often distinctive circumstances of each case. At times there is a cultural com- ponent to ethical issues involving hunger strikers. For example, Islamic scholars have advised that hunger-striking to the point of impending death is not a valid action in their faith, so long as detainees are allowed to perform their religious duties.

WORKSHOP SUMMARY 3 Addressing the need for training in medical ethics can involve a range of approaches. At the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, medical ethics is an essential element of the core curriculum and encompasses varied teaching methods, including inviting speakers to discuss their experiences, case study discussions, and field practice exer- cises. Continuing education of health professionals offers ongoing oppor- tunities to learn from interdisciplinary perspectives. Training outside the classroom in a real-world situation, such as aboard a naval hospital ship on a humanitarian mission, offers teachable moments for addressing ethical dilemmas. Innovative approaches for enhancing ethics training are being tried in various contexts. For example, at Northwestern Univer- sity, training in ethical issues in palliative medicine includes interdisci- plinary hospital rounds, interactions with patients in nonclinical settings, and instruction focused on real patients and their life experiences— sometimes presented through videotaped interviews. Organizational values and behavior strongly influence adherence to ethical principles. In the military, the commander sets the tone, as does his or her counterpart in civilian senior management. A just organization exhibits ethical awareness, judgment, and motivation and implements ethical standards. A step that organizations can take to strengthen their ethical infrastructure is to establish an ombudsperson’s office to investi- gate individual complaints and report findings in the aggregate, without personal identifiers. Ensuring that organizations act ethically requires involving staff at many levels, along with organizational feedback, delib- eration, organized advocacy, and appropriate checks and balances, some of which may be external to the organization. Within the military services, primary responsibility to the patient should prevail in nearly all circumstances. This workshop focused on situations in which ethical conflicts arise because of dual loyalties. Workshop participants emphasized several points: • Dual loyalty situations can occur in military medicine, although in most routine aspects of health care, military medicine is simi- lar to civilian medicine. • Models used in occupational medicine, sports medicine, and prison medicine, among others, can be informative in consider- ing ways to address ethical issues in military medicine. • Some important differences exist between international declara- tions and DoD health policies regarding hunger strikes. The two views cannot easily be reconciled in the abstract, but, in many

4 MILITARY MEDICAL ETHICS: ISSUES REGARDING DUAL LOYALTIES situations, consideration of individual circumstances could lead to the same result under either approach. • Ethical considerations relevant to military medicine include par- ity, elasticity, and primum non nocere. 2 Transparency of policies and practices should be paramount, except in those situations when legitimate security concerns require setting limits on the disclosure of information. • Patient trust in health care professionals is vital for a productive provider–patient relationship, yet sometimes difficult to engen- der in circumstances of dual loyalty. • Ethical decision making requires more than prioritizing separate principles, such as autonomy and beneficence. The ethical prin- ciples must be recognized, specified, and balanced in practical ways that build trust and preserve the dignity of each person. INTRODUCTION • Are there situations in which military medical ethics differ from the ethics of a civilian medical practice? If so, how do the obli- gations of a military officer and a military health professional differ? • What other models could be used to examine these conflicts (e.g., occupational health)? • How do existing national and international standards of medical ethics apply to military physicians, and what is their relationship to national and international law? • What are the ethical principles that guide medical practice for military physicians? Do these principles differ from those of the broader medical community? These four central questions were the starting point for discussion at an all-day workshop, “Military Medical Ethics: Issues Regarding Dual Loyalties,” conducted by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) of the National Academies on September 8, 2008. Jointly sponsored by the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs and the Greenwall 2 In this context, parity refers to equality in treating patients, elasticity refers to flexibil- ity in implementing policies, and primum non nocere is the historic principle of “first, do no harm.”

WORKSHOP SUMMARY 5 Foundation, the workshop was held at the National Academies building in Washington, DC. Seventy-three registered participants, representing diverse perspectives from academic, military, business, human rights, and health professions, contributed to the discussion. The workshop was not intended to generate firm rules or a prescrip- tion for change; rather, it was intended to serve as a forum for discussion of the ethical challenges for physicians and other health professionals serving in the military—ethical challenges that sometimes arise from conflicts between their responsibilities to patients and their duties as military officers. A planning committee of 10 members, assisted by IOM staff, designed the workshop to that end. The committee’s role was lim- ited to determining the format, setting the agenda, and choosing speak- ers, session moderators, topics, background readings, and two case studies to be used in the discussion. This report was prepared by the rap- porteurs as a factual summary of the workshop discussion; it consolidates the views of the individual participants but is not intended to reflect a consensus of those attending. Background materials provided for the workshop defined dual loy- alty situations (also termed mixed agency) as those in which health pro- fessionals are obligated to fulfill multiple roles, sometimes resulting in ethical tensions between the roles (Beam and Sparacino, 2003; Appendix A). The workshop focused on two specific situations in which military health professionals may face ethical conflicts because of dual loyal- ties—decisions regarding returning servicemembers to duty following an injury or health concern and decisions regarding the care of hunger strik- ers. The military is only one of many environments that involve dual loyalties. Selected others include • occupational health, where a physician serves both patients and employers; • infectious disease or mental health practice, where a clinician may have to balance the patient’s interests and demands against those of the patient’s family, sexual partners, or other individuals at potential risk of harm by the patient (Johnson et al., 2006); • sports medicine, where a physician or athletic trainer serves both the athlete and a sports organization or team; • forensic medicine, where a physician consultant serves the court but also has some responsibilities to the individual being exam- ined (Strasburger et al., 1997); and

6 MILITARY MEDICAL ETHICS: ISSUES REGARDING DUAL LOYALTIES • public health practice, where a community’s interest in immuni- zations or quarantine may conflict with an individual’s interest, religious conviction, or preference. It is difficult for ethical arbiters and instructors to articulate the pre- cise ethical obligations of physicians in such varied, complex, and pres- sured situations. However, once articulated in the abstract, these obli- gations also must be effectively imparted to, and internalized by, current and future physicians likely to face such dilemmas. Educational models for medical ethics exist in several settings, such as military medical edu- cation, training in end-of-life care, and preparation of medical ombuds- persons. TOWARD A FRAMEWORK FOR RESOLVING DUAL LOYALTIES The workshop discussion commenced with a description of its con- text. The immediate and vital task in resolving dual loyalties is to lay out the difficulties. IOM President Harvey Fineberg observed, “Every one of us in our lives takes on different roles, some of them by chance, and some by choice.” Legal contracts, moral compacts, and other allegiances affect these relationships and responsibilities. Volunteers in the U.S. military service accept profound responsibilities—on oath 3 —but often these responsibilities are not clearly laid out in parallel or made to rein- force each other. As a result, said Fineberg, “moments of tension” arise, morally and in other ways. He offered as an “underlying premise” of the workshop the belief that these difficult issues do not benefit from being ignored or secretly managed or considered to be implicit. Rather, discus- sions such as those conducted during this workshop “can provide an op- portunity for reconciliation, for clarity, for decision making that will be based on ethical principles and guided by the realities” in carrying out the dual roles of health professional and military officer. 3 The oath of office of military officers is similar to oaths taken by civilian officials: “I . . . do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic; that I will bear true faith and alle- giance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter, so help me God” (U.S. Army, 2004).

WORKSHOP SUMMARY 7 Negotiating ethical issues in military medicine is not simply a matter of implementing previously agreed-upon principles. Applying these prin- ciples in real-world situations involves health professionals making prac- tical judgments in complex circumstances. Joseph Kelley, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Clinical and Program Policy, observed that issues of medical ethics in the military often correspond to conten- tious issues in civilian medical practice. For example, the military deci- sion about return to duty is similar to the decision in sports medicine about keeping a player in a game, and the military physician’s need to recognize organizational interests is similar to the pressure exerted on the managed care physician to deny expensive medical procedures that are not cost-effective. Opportunities exist to improve the training of both military and civilian health professionals in working through these com- plex issues. Facing dual loyalties is nothing new for physicians and other health professionals; these issues have a history in military and other contexts and have often evoked vigorous and even heated discussion. Workshop Planning Committee Chair James F. Childress, Director of the University of Virginia Institute for Practical Ethics and Public Life, observed that the workshop discussion is designed to bring varied perspectives together to focus on opportunities for improving policy, practice, training, and individual and organizational decision making relevant to these types of ethical dilemmas. Childress noted that the intent of the workshop is not to investigate past allegations. In addressing dual loyalty, Childress said, the workshop will discuss which ethical principles are involved, whether these principles must be prioritized, what guidance exists and what needs to be developed, and who the ultimate decision makers are as well as how the training and other support they need will be provided. Ethically defining and balancing multiple role responsibilities and divided loyalties are the challenges for the discussion and for future action. ETHICAL DECISION MAKING: RETURN TO DUTY The participants in the first panel discussion considered a case study of ethical challenges to physicians charged with recommending whether to return a sick or injured servicemember to combat (or other fields of duty) (Box 1). The case study, involving a traumatic brain injury and risk of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), included two situations that dif- fered in whether the soldier wished to return to combat.

8 MILITARY MEDICAL ETHICS: ISSUES REGARDING DUAL LOYALTIES BOX 1 Case Study 1 Return to Duty: Ethical Issues for Military Health Professionals A U.S. soldier suffers injuries from the explosion of an improvised explosive device. Injuries include closed-head injury resulting in loss of conscious- ness. After six weeks of treatment, the soldier is medically stable and func- tional, though he continues to complain of fatigue, disturbed sleep, and daily headaches. It is likely that he would be at higher risk for more severe impairment and PTSD if he were to suffer another similar explosion result- ing in further traumatic brain injury. Situation 1: The soldier is eager to return to the front lines and even when provided with the information on potential detrimental health consequences is willing to take his chances and return to his unit. The soldier is very insis- tent that he understands the risks and feels that the best way to resume his life is to return to his unit. His commanding officers express the strong need for his expertise and experience but do not exert any pressure to return the soldier to his former patrolling duties. Situation 2: The soldier does not want to return to his patrolling duties and asks for reassignment. The physician suspects that the soldier may be exaggerating the symptoms that he is experiencing, though clearly consid- erable residual effects remain. However, personnel levels are low, with re- placements several months down the road. Soldiers with his level of experi- ence are desperately needed for upcoming missions, and there is strong pressure from the chain of command on the treating physician to sign off and return the soldier to his patrolling duties. Considerations: • What principles are in conflict? • What guides the clinician in approaching each situation? • What about the setting makes this situation different from civilian set- tings? Are the differences enough to warrant a separate rule? • Who is the ultimate decision maker regarding decisions on return to the battlefront? • What mechanisms or resources would help the health professional in resolving this conflict?

WORKSHOP SUMMARY 9 Military Considerations The concept of fitness for duty incorporates the health of the individ- ual and the overall health of the force. Even the health of the individual involves a multifaceted set of ethical factors. Colonel Elspeth Cameron Ritchie, Medical Director for Strategic Communication in the Army Medical Department, noted an increased emphasis in military medicine in recent years on patient education, prevention, and early diagnosis. The commander has the final call regarding return to duty, said Ritchie, but usually relies on physician recommendations, particularly when there is a recommendation for a medical evaluation board. Data on decisions regarding return to duty are difficult to obtain be- cause most communication has occurred through a paper medical profile that conveys health status and treatment information from the physician to the commander. As electronic medical records become more wide- spread, these data will become more accessible. As a psychiatrist, Ritchie focused on behavioral health while noting similar issues for other medical fields. She outlined several key factors taken into account in return-to-duty decisions. In 2006 the DoD Office of Health Affairs developed standards for all military services requiring that deployed servicemembers meet military retention standards in order to be deployed and requiring a pattern of stability for three months for spe- cific behavioral health diagnoses. A waiver process is available. Ritchie said that to date, 88 waivers have been requested with 22 of those disap- proved. Determining the level of impairment for some psychiatric condi- tions can be challenging, given the potential impact of working in the operational theater. Decisions regarding acceptable medications for de- ployment (DoD, 2006a) have been made more complex by use of newer medications for some psychiatric conditions that may provide greater long-term stability when used in low doses. Although servicemembers on permanent antipsychotic regimens have been prohibited by policy from being returned to duty, newer medications, such as quetiapine, may pro- vide long-term stability when used in low doses for treatment of symp- toms associated with psychiatric conditions. Other factors that affect return-to-duty decisions include access to treatment. Improved access to more sophisticated health care services now exists for PTSD and other mental health problems in mature theaters of operations, such as parts of Iraq. Further, return-to-duty decisions can include returning the servicemember to duty on a trial basis, with the po- tential for change of duty or evacuation as needed. Ritchie noted that the

10 MILITARY MEDICAL ETHICS: ISSUES REGARDING DUAL LOYALTIES number of psychiatric casualties suffered by U.S. troops has not gone down and that there have been 20 to 40 evacuations per month for psy- chiatric reasons throughout the course of the war. Return-to-duty decisions are fraught with the potential for unin- tended consequences. For example, a decision not to return a service- member to duty can, in some cases, result in an administrative separation without disability compensation. And, for some patients, isolation from the soldier’s usual environment can prove harmful emotionally. A deci- sion to remove a soldier from harm’s way for mental health reasons can potentially stigmatize the soldier. In addressing the two situations of the case study, Ritchie com- mented that motivated soldiers who use the resources available for as- sessment and treatment have options available to return to duty at the pace needed or on a trial basis. Working with an unmotivated service- member involves discussions between the commander and the physician with the possibility of temporary changes in job duty station or trial duty options. Occupational Health Parallels Occupational health professionals face ethical conflicts that may be instructive to their military counterparts. Several professional associa- tions, including the American College of Occupational and Environ- mental Medicine and the International Commission on Occupational Health, have addressed dual loyalties—to the patient and to the em- ployer—and call for putting responsibility to the patient first (ACOEM, 2008; ICOH, 2002). Large firms and other organizations usually try to return employees to work promptly, even if in another capacity. Myron C. Harrison, Senior Health Adviser at ExxonMobil Corporation, sug- gested that, by contrast, small organizations may need the employee in the same job and may not have the flexibility to assign individuals to new roles. Another difference is that in large organizations occupational medicine physicians typically report to another physician and therefore are somewhat insulated from business priorities, whereas their counter- parts in smaller organizations often report to executives with bottom-line responsibilities who may be less tolerant of medical excuses. In smaller corporations, Harrison noted that the occupational health professional may also be more isolated. Occupational health often involves triaging and referring patients to specialists in the community. This involves early

WORKSHOP SUMMARY 11 case management by working with the patient, family, and supervisor or management. External referrals are also used to assess the worker’s abil- ity to return to work, thus providing transparency and a greater measure of independence. Harrison described ethical conflicts that typically involve competing “rights.” Some matters, such as protections of employee confidentiality, are now prescribed by law and are dealt with through legal approaches. On ethical issues without legal mandates, Harrison noted that there are few if any algorithmic-type answers. As a touchstone, Harrison sug- gested that an act that deceives someone, whether the individual or the employer, probably is unethical. If no one—employee, manager, or labor union—is being deceived, then the matter probably is being handled transparently and on an ethical track. Harrison highlighted that safety- sensitive situations are managed very tightly with limitations on em- ployee autonomy when third-party and plant safety is a concern. Similar to medical profiles in the military (used for communicating medical treatment issues relevant to duty status between military physi- cians and commanders), communications by occupational health profes- sionals to the worker’s supervisor focus on conveying the limitations dictated by the patient’s health status. Regarding the case study, Harrison observed that the accuracy of the individual’s description of symptoms often is doubted in cases such as those described in the second situation, when the individual does not wish to return to work, but is almost never doubted in the first situation, when the individual wishes to return. In a scenario similar to that of the motivated soldier, some occupational physicians would practice paternal- ism and would write a restriction from work, Harrison stated; relevant considerations include the magnitude of the risk and imminence of harm to the patient. In the situation of the unmotivated soldier, Harrison dis- cussed temporarily placing the patient in a noncombat role while taking time to observe any progress. Sports Medicine Parallels Sports medicine offers other possible ethical parallels with military medicine. In competitive professional or interscholastic sports, a decision to return a sick or injured player to the field or court usually involves a triad of decision makers: the coach, the player, and the physician. Kurt P. Spindler, Professor of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation at the Vanderbilt

12 MILITARY MEDICAL ETHICS: ISSUES REGARDING DUAL LOYALTIES University School of Medicine and head team physician for Vanderbilt’s NCAA Division I varsity athletes, suggested that a military analog might consist of the commander, servicemember, and physician. Another simi- larity is the need to take into account the team’s performance, which could be either strengthened or weakened by the player’s return, depend- ing in part on the availability of substitute players. A key difference be- tween the sports and military venues is that an athlete has more autonomy than a member of the armed forces. Spindler noted differences between the levels of sports competition regarding the freedom of the athlete to choose the course of action. In high school, participation in sports is totally voluntary, and the physician acts as an adviser to the par- ents, student, and coach. In college the head physician makes the deci- sion regarding playing status, which cannot be overruled by the coach or other collegiate officials. College students have a great deal of autonomy, although there are often scholarship and enrollment considerations. In professional sports, the players are under contract, and injuries involve worker compensation decisions and regulations. As in occupational medicine, the sports medicine physician’s pri- mary responsibility is to the individual; in sports, this includes a duty to describe the risks and benefits of alternative treatments as well as the risks, and possible benefits, of continuing play. Transparency in decision making is essential. Preventing a permanent injury is usually the main consideration. Other factors include • the individual’s freedom to choose; • the specific role on the team and the extent to which the injury will affect the player’s ability to perform (e.g., in football a hand injury is more harmful to a quarterback than to a lineman); and • timing, as an individual might be appropriately returned after a delay but not immediately. When an injury occurs, the sports medicine physician on the side- lines ideally takes the following steps: (1) defines the injury; (2) provides immediate treatment; (3) determines the risk; (4) assesses performance capability; (5) determines, in consultation with the coach, the benefit to the team; (6) discusses the alternatives with the coach and player; and (7) makes a final decision as part of the triad. The third step, risk assessment, is the pivotal task; it can lead to difficult decisions when, as often hap-

WORKSHOP SUMMARY 13 pens, there is a moderate risk, requiring close communication among the player, coach, and team. Applying a sports context to the two situations outlined in the case study, Spindler stated that under the first scenario of a willing player and a clear risk of severe impairment such as a concussion, the player should not be returned immediately. Under the second scenario, if the patient does not have residual symptoms then the player can return, and the chal- lenge is to regain the motivation to perform at a high level as part of the team. Discussion Comments focused first on the aptness of the analogies between problems arising in occupational and sports medicine and problems con- fronted in the military environment. Ritchie commented that a battlefield decision can, of course, be potentially far more consequential than an athletic field decision in terms of survival. Also, there may be more per- manent consequences, because troops who leave for psychiatric or psy- chological reasons related to head injury or other concerns often do not return to the battlefield, and options can include early intervention and taking time to assess progress. The decision often does not involve weighing two “rights,” she added, but weighing two wrongs, such as a pattern of being unmotivated against a pattern of putting too much pres- sure on troops. In addition, units with a high degree of cohesiveness gen- erally manifest higher return rates. Lessons have been learned about rotating units rather than individuals in and out of the theater of opera- tions to enhance those bonds. Harrison noted that a paternalistic, or “pseudo-paternalistic,” decision (using the approach that the corporation knows what is best for the employee) not to return an individual to work in a corporation can be an easy way out of a dilemma; for example, many physicians permanently remove employees with low-back injuries de- spite the lack of medical evidence that such injuries tend to recur. Wages can be more important to the employee than a risk of future injury, so that a holistic view of health is needed with an emphasis on the individ- ual’s assessment and choice. Organizational structure and information sharing can play an impor- tant role in return-to-duty decisions. For example, athletic trainers who are the first line of triage for sports injuries can be employed and super- vised by the medical team—the ideal scenario—or they can be employed

14 MILITARY MEDICAL ETHICS: ISSUES REGARDING DUAL LOYALTIES by the athletic department, where there is the potential for more pressures from the coaching staff and others. In the military, information sharing about medical conditions is limited to providing commanders with the information they need to know for job status and functional assessment. Ritchie noted that the medical profiles provided to commanders focus on what the soldier can or cannot do and on any problems that affect readi- ness to meet job demands. Regarding psychiatric issues in the military, session moderator Paul S. Appelbaum from Columbia University Medical Center com- mented that the Army Medical Corps’ rapid triage efforts to address is- sues close to the battlefield in World War II reduced long-term psychiatric morbidity and that lessons learned from those efforts launched the community psychiatry movement. Ritchie noted that until recently a servicemember’s psychiatric history could negatively affect his or her security clearance. However, the policy of asking about seek- ing psychiatric counseling (the Question 21 issue on the government se- curity clearance form) was relaxed in recent years—partly to improve PTSD diagnosis and treatment—by exempting combat-related psychiat- ric encounters from the grounds for reducing or revoking security clear- ances. Discussion focused on the extent of patient autonomy in the military as compared with other situations. Ritchie noted that, with exceptions such as mandatory immunizations, military servicemembers have a great deal of influence over their own health care. Communication among the patient, health professional, and commander can be important in identify- ing problems that may have an impact on performing a specific job. An important consideration is the commander’s responsibility for the health of all members of the unit. This can lead in many cases to decisions pro- moting and accommodating the individual’s health but, in a few other cases, to decisions that give greater weight to the unit’s interests. Differ- ences between the military services were noted: In the Navy, for exam- ple, the captain of a ship at sea has responsibility for the life and health of all aboard and would be involved in major medical decisions. Harrison noted similar issues in the private sector, including mandat- ing that employees undertake chemoprophylaxis for malaria if they are working in areas where the disease is endemic. The corporation, in this case, followed up by monitoring employees through urine testing for the medication metabolites. A member of the audience raised a similar ex- ample—the requirement for school children to be immunized for specific diseases that are of public health concern.

WORKSHOP SUMMARY 15 A topic of discussion later in the day—the role of organizational structures and independent entities—was introduced at the end of this session. It was noted that a military health professional has other means of reporting problems than strictly to the commander. Outlets outside the chain of command include consultants in the various specialties, inspec- tors general, and chaplains. ETHICAL DECISION MAKING: TREATMENT OF DETAINEES The participants in the second panel discussion considered a case study of ethical challenges to physicians caring for detainees who have undertaken a hunger strike (Box 2). The panel’s purpose was to explore BOX 2 Case Study 2 Treatment of Detainees: Role of Military Health Professionals Ten detainees in a national security facility have gone on a hunger strike to protest the conditions of their confinement. Part 1: The strike has gone on for three days, and the detainees are taking only water and vitamins. The camp commander declares the strike a threat to security and order and directs the doctor to evaluate the medical condition of the detainees and to “do whatever is necessary to bring this to an end.” The doctor examines the detainees and finds no immediate threat to the health of any individual detainee at this point in the strike. Part 2: The hunger strike has continued for 45 days. One striker has lost 30 percent of his initial body weight and is felt to be at risk of irreversible harm or even death. He has previously said to the physician that he does not in- tend to die, but is willing to die if there is no resolution to his grievances. Considerations: • What principles are in conflict? • What guides the clinician in approaching this conflict? • What about the setting makes this situation different from civilian settings? Are the differences enough to warrant a separate rule? What comparisons are there to civilian settings such as jails and prisons? • Who is the ultimate decision maker regarding a clinical interven- tion? • What mechanisms or resources would help the health professional in resolving this conflict?

16 MILITARY MEDICAL ETHICS: ISSUES REGARDING DUAL LOYALTIES broad ethical issues involving treatment of detainees. The context, noted by session moderator Richard J. Bonnie from the University of Virginia, was public concern about treatment of military detainees, including a question of whether physicians have contributed to, or failed to report, certain abuses. The case study, involving a protest against conditions of confinement, included two situations that differed in part in the length of the strike and in directives given to the physician. International Perspectives The purpose of a hunger strike—a protest tactic used by Gandhi, by British and American suffragettes, and by Irish Republican Army (IRA) leaders in British prisons—is to shame the authorities. Hernan Reyes, Medical Coordinator for Health in Detention of the International Com- mittee of the Red Cross, stated that hunger strikers do not intend to commit suicide; however, strikers are willing to use their bodies to pro- test degrading conditions or to promote their cause. To qualify as a hun- ger strike, a refusal of food must involve “purpose and determination,” that is, a willingness to harm oneself if necessary, but only as a last re- sort; the objective is to convince the authorities to respond to the hunger striker’s complaints. Reyes differentiated a “food refuser,” who does not intend to harm him or herself, from a hunger striker. He also talked about the range in the types of liquids and vitamins taken by hunger strikers. The experience, drawn mostly from the 1981 IRA incident, is that a hun- ger strike manifests itself within 72 hours, when ketosis 4 can be smelled on the breath, and that death, in those ingesting only water, generally occurs roughly between 55 and 65 days and within a maximum of 73 days. 5 International declarations support the right of detainees to engage in a hunger strike. The Tokyo Declaration of 1975 6 prohibits artificial feed- 4 Ketosis is a metabolic state, associated with starvation, in which the liver excessively converts fat into fatty acids and ketone bodies to use as energy. 5 The length of survival may depend in part on the prisoner’s underlying nutritional status. 6 “Where a prisoner refuses nourishment and is considered by the physician as capable of forming an unimpaired and rational judgment concerning the consequences of such a voluntary refusal of nourishment, he or she shall not be fed artificially. The decision as to the capacity of the prisoner to form such a judgment should be confirmed by at least one other independent physician. The consequences of the refusal of nourishment shall be explained by the physician to the prisoner” (WMA, 1975).

WORKSHOP SUMMARY 17 ing of hunger strikers. Physicians are not supposed to treat hunger strik- ers so as to send them back to torture. In 2006 the World Medical Asso- ciation (WMA), with the support of the American Medical Association (AMA), issued the Malta Declaration, stating that physicians are obliged to respect hunger strikers’ autonomy (WMA, 2006). The Malta Declara- tion prohibits force-feeding. It permits artificial feeding, such as the intravenous administration of a saline solution, or even nasogastric feed- ing, if and only if it is accepted by the hunger striker (WMA, 2006). Regarding the case study, Reyes noted that a hunger strike of only three days would not require medical intervention. If the strike continues, the physician caring for the hunger striker should consider whether there are specific contraindications, such as diabetes or gastritis, that could lead to permanent adverse effects, even in the case of only a brief strike, and whether the detainee is being coerced into striking through peer pressure from other detainees. The physician should strive to gain the detainee’s trust rather than act as an agent of security forces. In the sec- ond part of the case, after 45 days, patients would have, or would soon have, ocular-motor problems, including dizziness, inability to stand, and severe vomiting. Most hunger strikers stop fasting when they approach this stage, as it is extremely distressing and uncomfortable. According to the Malta Declaration, consideration is to be given to any advance in- structions and patient autonomy respected. Military Policy The Department of Defense has adopted a series of policies that gov- ern treatment of hunger strikers. Jack Smith, Director of Clinical and Program Policy Integration in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, discussed the principles delineated in 2006 in DoD Instruction 2310.08E (DOD, 2006b): • Health care personnel have a duty in all matters affecting the physical and mental health of detainees to uphold humane treat- ment and ensure that detainees are not subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. • Health care personnel shall not have any provider–patient rela- tionship with detainees “the purpose of which is not solely to evaluate, protect, or improve their physical and mental health.”

18 MILITARY MEDICAL ETHICS: ISSUES REGARDING DUAL LOYALTIES • Health care personnel charged with the medical care of detainees have a duty to “protect detainees’ physical and mental health and provide appropriate treatment for disease”; to the extent feasible, this care should be similar to care provided to U.S. military ser- vicemembers. • Health care personnel shall not certify or participate in the certi- fication of fitness of detainees for “any form of treatment or pun- ishment that is not in accordance with applicable law, or par- ticipate in any way in the administration of any such treatment or punishment.” • Health care personnel are not to participate in application of physical restraints unless such a procedure is “necessary for the protection of the physical or mental health or the safety of the detainee, or necessary for the protection of other detainees or those treating, guarding, or otherwise interacting with them.” Health care personnel are not to participate in the custodial physical restraint of detainees. • Health care is generally provided with consent of the detainee. Detainees have the right to refuse treatment, except for “lifesav- ing emergency medical care provided to a patient incapable of providing consent or for care necessary to protect public health, such as to prevent the spread of communicable diseases.” • Medical treatment or intervention may be directed without con- sent of the detainee “in the case of a hunger strike, attempted suicide, or other attempted serious self-harm” when treatment is necessary “to prevent death or serious harm.” • Involuntary treatment must be preceded by a thorough medical and mental health evaluation and counseling concerning the risks and “carried out in a medically appropriate manner.” This policy includes “parity,” in which detainees are entitled to treatment similar to that provided to U.S. servicemembers. A decision to undertake compulsory intervention to treat a hunger striker would be made by the joint task force commander, based on the physician’s medical assessment and recommendation that “immediate treatment or intervention is necessary to prevent death or serious harm.” The procedures are consistent with Federal Bureau of Prisons regulations under Title 28 of the U.S. Code, said Smith, and are designed to support the preservation of life and health by appropriate humane and compas- sionate clinical intervention when medically necessary.

WORKSHOP SUMMARY 19 Regarding the case study, Smith noted that after three days of fasting by a detainee, the physician would conduct a thorough history and physi- cal and mental assessment, and no medical intervention would occur at that point if the patient were found to be healthy. He noted that the first part of the case study was unlikely to occur, because a commander famil- iar with DoD policy regarding hunger strikers would seek to intervene only when the detainee’s life or health was at risk and because com- manders typically would call for medical consultations and appropriate specialty referrals. After 45 days of a hunger strike, ethical obligations of beneficence and nonmaleficence would compete with obligations to re- spect autonomy. Smith questioned whether any confined individual has sufficient autonomy to make a life-or-death decision; hunger strikers could be coerced or acting out of despair or depression. 7 Smith also noted that under DoD policy, military health profession- als are obligated to report suspected or observed abuse to the operational chain of command or, if they do not believe appropriate investigations or actions are occurring, to go through the medical chain of command, the DoD or service inspectors general, or the Criminal Investigative Services. Correctional Facility Parallels Scott A. Allen, Co-Director of the Brown University Center for Prison Health and Human Rights, discussed the similarities and differ- ences between the health professional’s responsibilities regarding hunger strikers in civilian correctional and military detention environments. Foremost in both settings is the importance of establishing trust with the patient. In the eyes of a patient in either setting, the physician can be per- ceived as the instrument of the institution. Dual loyalty is an inherent problem in prison medicine and detention facilities, but Allen stressed that the “recognizing of these competing loyalties is not the same as equating them. . . . [L]oyalty to the patient does take preeminence.” Similarities also exist in reduced patient autonomy and the physician’s limited ability to control events. 7 During the discussion, it was stated that any person refusing food because of coercion or clinical depression is not engaging in a genuine protest fast and that appropriate medi- cal intervention would be permissible to protect the person’s health and well-being.

20 MILITARY MEDICAL ETHICS: ISSUES REGARDING DUAL LOYALTIES Allen described the potential for a downward spiral of impaired trust in correctional situations that he believes also applies to the military detention situation (Figure 1). The threat of coerced treatment imperils doctor–patient trust, which decreases the chance of resolution, puts pres- sures on the chain of command to resolve the conflict, and compromises the autonomy of the physician. Human Rights Perspectives Although the classic dilemma in the medical response to hunger strikes is a clash between the moral principles of autonomy and benefi- cence, Leonard S. Rubenstein, President of Physicians for Human Rights, stated that the correct moral decision is clear in cases where hu- man rights violations are occurring. Rubenstein noted that the physi- cian’s duty to exercise independent clinical judgment is “woven into the fabric of medical professionalism” and that any command directives seeking to trump those clinical judgments would breach professional standards as well as human rights and the requirements of the Geneva Conventions. Even in a harder case, where a clinical judgment is not dic- tated but the physician is asked to elevate security interests over the interests of the detainees, Rubenstein stated that the International Dual Coerced Compromised treatment or MD autonomy threat of… Chain of Impaired command doctor patient pressures to trust resolve Decreased chance of resolution FIGURE 1 Potential for a spiral of impaired trust in prisons.

WORKSHOP SUMMARY 21 Loyalty Working Group recommended that any exceptions to patient loyalty by health professionals should be established by competent standard-setting authorities (International Dual Loyalty Working Group, 2003). In discussing the case study, Rubenstein expanded the hypothetical situations posed by the workshop to include conditions of abuse and other human rights violations against detainees. In such cases the physi- cians have a duty not merely to report abuses, but to try to stop the abuses. This requires shaping an environment where physicians are em- powered to act ethically, rather than having to resort, in isolation, to he- roic tactics to meet their ethical obligations. Most fundamentally, when detainees’ human rights are violated, Rubenstein stated that physicians should not use their skills and knowledge to “enable, advance, or permit torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading maltreatment.” Cultural and Religious Issues Mahmud A. Thamer, retired Assistant Professor at the Johns Hop- kins University School of Medicine and former member of the faculty of Medicine at Baghdad Medical School, asked several leading Islamic scholars of the Sunni and Shi’a traditions about hunger strikes. Asked to define physicians’ responsibilities during a hunger strike, the scholars in both sects agreed that a Muslim has no right to undertake a hunger strike that could lead to death unless he or she is prohibited from the perform- ance of religious duties. They also agreed that if the detainees are al- lowed to practice their religion, it is the responsibility of the attending physician to advise and then actively intervene to stop the hunger strike. Thamer said it is important to broaden the focus beyond Western in- dividualism and self-determination in order to include cultural view- points that emphasize communities, such as those in the Middle East, which have a more tribal and communal perspective. Acknowledging that there are universal human rights, Thamer noted that the manifesta- tions of those rights differ from culture to culture. Similarly, views of what constitutes torture may differ between the West and other cultures; in Islamic societies, for example, sexual humiliation (as practiced to a degree at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq) is worse than physical blows. Detention authorities need to consider detainees’ cultural traditions and beliefs, Thamer said. Authorities could involve religious and tribal

22 MILITARY MEDICAL ETHICS: ISSUES REGARDING DUAL LOYALTIES leaders in creating an atmosphere of respect and order that can increase compliance. Discussion Reyes began the discussion session by emphasizing that the clinician should consider the specific circumstances of each case before taking a course of action, offering as an illustration a recent case in which a judge and a physician disagreed about whether to force-feed a self-styled hun- ger striker who at the three-week point of the strike was not at clinical risk and who was being manipulative. In addition to determining whether there are indications of depression or other mental illnesses, health pro- fessionals should consult individually with each hunger striker to deter- mine whether he or she has been subjected to peer pressure or coercion. The participants discussed the differences between the DoD policy and the WMA Malta Declaration. During the discussion it was noted that permitting forcible treatment of mentally competent hunger strikers con- travenes the WMA 2006 Malta Declaration and the official position of the American Medical Association. Further, it was noted that a command decision overriding the medical recommendation, although unlikely to occur, would also violate the Malta Declaration. Smith stated that the DoD policy’s emphasis on beneficence and preservation of life can cre- ate trust on the part of detainees toward medical professionals, who will act to prevent medical harm if possible. Furthermore, Smith noted, the policy prevents radical leaders from imposing a hunger strike on less powerful prisoners. A workshop participant suggested that the different positions of the DoD and WMA should be brought to a neutral authorita- tive body, such as state boards that license U.S. civilian and military physicians. One participant stated that he felt that there was agreement of the participants that commanders should not overrule the professional medi- cal judgment of physicians. However, there were differences of opinion among participants about the actual conditions of confinement and inter- rogation previously in place at Guantanamo (and about the extent to which these conditions have since been ameliorated). Several partici- pants pushed for further inquiries into allegations of past abuse. Allen commented, from personal experience, about the risks that whistle-blowers encounter. Several participants emphasized the impor- tance of ensuring multiple avenues for reporting ethical concerns and not

WORKSHOP SUMMARY 23 relying on medical heroism. Along these lines, DoD representatives dis- cussed the multiple avenues that are available to health professionals in detainee facilities including both the line and medical chains of com- mand, medical specialty consultants, law enforcement officials, and ser- vice or DoD inspectors general. Participants also stressed the need to ensure the viability and accessibility of these options, as well as the need to broadly disseminate this information. The value of transparency was highlighted by several participants as was the need to achieve the highest possible level of transparency consis- tent with national security. Also acknowledged were positive changes that have been made at Guantanamo and the professionalism of many military health professionals. Productive efforts to engage both human rights organizations and military health professionals in discussions about the revisions to the Army field manual on interrogation were high- lighted. Several matters were also raised for further consideration. Bruce Meneley, commander of the Joint Medical Group at Guantanamo, asked about a physician’s ethical obligation toward people who use martyrdom as a tactic. Panel moderator Richard Bonnie raised the issue of the physi- cian’s role as a mediator or negotiator, which complicates the already numerous roles of the health care professional in conducting assessments of the hunger striker’s health status, capacity, and motivation, as well as providing counseling. Mediating between the patient and the com- mander, while remaining loyal to both sides, is difficult at best. Another participant supported greater consideration of cultural aspects by policy makers. INITIAL AFTERNOON DISCUSSION The afternoon session opened with a general discussion of the morn- ing’s presentations. Planning Committee Chair Childress asked how to delineate when a health professional is in the role of health care provider and is therefore in a provider–patient relationship: Is this defined by the nature of the relationship (such as a person being brought to the physi- cian for an examination) or by the use of the physician’s knowledge and skills (such as the physician’s perception of an absence of proper care)? Linda Emanuel raised an additional question: When should someone (such as an on-base fellow officer of a psychiatrist) be regarded as a po- tential patient to whom the physician may owe a duty of confidentiality

24 MILITARY MEDICAL ETHICS: ISSUES REGARDING DUAL LOYALTIES and other safeguards? Further, at what point should a health professional be advocating for a solution to the root cause of the problem? One participant responded that in hospitals or other institutional set- tings, the physician assumes a duty to the patient early on as an agent of an institution that is clearly responsible for caring for the patient. For example, as soon as an injured individual comes into the emergency room, health care professionals initiate the provider–patient relationship. In other cases, the patient’s perception of the fiduciary relationship may be a factor in determining the physician’s scope of duty. Addressing the operational military context, another participant said that because the commander makes the ultimate decision and may need to place the mis- sion’s interest above the individual’s interest, the physician should repre- sent the patient. It was also noted that a presumption of confidentiality exists in the military, with some stated exceptions, so a physician–patient relationship exists even in the case of prisoners. Discussion also turned to the many challenges that arise in opera- tional settings such as Iraq, where health professionals may be caring for a range of patients—U.S. and allied troops, U.S. and allied civilians, Iraqi civilians, and enemy combatants—and may need to make decisions about priority of care while also taking into account security concerns. ETHICS TRAINING The participants in the third panel discussion considered approaches to informing or instructing physicians (and other military health profes- sionals and health care workers) about ethical issues. Training of Military Medical Students According to recent empirical evidence, most U.S. medical students and military physicians are generally uninformed about medical ethical issues in military medicine (Bloche and Marks, 2005; Boyd et al., 2007). To remedy these deficiencies, Edmund Howe, Professor of Psychiatry at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (USUHS), stressed the importance of teaching ethics to future military physicians. In part because of dual loyalties, the military setting can present ethical situations that differ from typical civilian situations. For example, mili- tary triage decisions in time of battle—such as the classic example from

WORKSHOP SUMMARY 25 World War II of who should first receive antibiotics that are in short supply—reflect the utilitarian goal of the greatest good for the greatest number, rather than a standard of treating the sickest patients first. Howe noted three ethical precepts that are centrally applicable to treatment of prisoners and that are just as relevant to situations in mili- tary medicine: • equality or parity in treating patients, • elasticity or flexibility in implementing policies, and • the historic principle of “first, do no harm” (primum non nocere). Precisely because of their dual roles as agents of the military and cli- nicians, military physicians should clarify any ambiguities for the pa- tient, who may not always perceive which hat the physician is wearing. For example, when taking a medical history and asking about substance abuse, the physician should tell the patient up-front about the health pro- fessional’s obligations if illegal drug use is reported. In teaching ethics at USUHS, Howe and colleagues use several ap- proaches. Invited speakers who can share their ethical dilemmas through classroom presentations and discussions serve as models of appropriate decision making. Other approaches include case study discussions and field practice exercises in which superior officers issue simulated orders, some of which may be unethical, and students are asked to decide how to proceed. Students also learn about the different chains of command and to whom they can report activities that they suspect may be unethical. Ethics Training in the Field and Continuing Education Ethics training can also take place through opportunities for continu- ing education. Kenneth W. Schor, Assistant Professor of Preventive Medicine and Biometrics at USUHS, described an ethics training course that was implemented with personnel on the hospital ship USNS Mercy as it traveled the South Pacific as part of Pacific Partnership 2008. The ethics course was accredited for both continuing medical education and continuing nursing education. Participants included not only military health professionals but also U.S. Public Health Service staff of the Commissioned Corps, civilian volunteers from organizations such as Project HOPE and Operation Smile, and personnel from partner nations.

26 MILITARY MEDICAL ETHICS: ISSUES REGARDING DUAL LOYALTIES The instruction occurred during transits between ports, as those were the teachable moments when personnel were on board and no one was actively treating patients. In providing care quickly overseas to thousands of victims of natural disasters or epidemics, these health care workers and volunteers must balance the health of individual patients with the health of the population. The ethics course was case-based and included structured discussion; this format elicited a great deal of discussion about personal experiences. The training also adapted a human rights impact assessment tool for public health interventions and policies (Box 3). Schor noted the dearth of peer-reviewed literature on the ethics of hu- manitarian assistance as well as the need for ethical considerations to “seep” into the planning, implementation, and assessment phases of hu- manitarian assistance missions. BOX 3 Adapted Human Rights Impact Assessment Tool for Public Health Interventions and Policies 1. Is there a clearly defined compelling and justified public health purpose? 2. Is the program/policy appropriate and likely to be efficient and effective? 3. Is the intervention well-targeted (neither overly inclusive nor under- inclusive)? 4. Are any civil, political, social, economic, or cultural rights being infringed upon or any ethical principles being violated? 5. Are there alternative interventions that are less intrusive/invasive or that have fewer ethical encumbrances? 6. Is the intervention likely to avert significant harm? 7. Are there procedural safeguards in place to ensure equity, fairness, and accountability? 8. Are the decision-making and intervention processes transparent to all concerned? SOURCE: Adapted from Gostin and Mann (1994).

WORKSHOP SUMMARY 27 Scenarios presented in the onboard training exercises included • conflict between the opinions of health professionals and force protection rules—for example, when surgical complications arise and overnight care for the patient could compromise the medical team’s safety; • the impact on the host nations—for example, the impact of the mission on the livelihood of local physicians and other health professionals; • questions about whose standard of care should prevail when U.S. health professionals practice in another country; • resource allocation decisions and public communication needs when more patients arrive to be treated than can be cared for; and • the importance of being knowledgeable about and respecting cul- tural traditions in the host country. Improving the Teaching of Ethics Experiences in teaching medical ethics in palliative care and geriat- rics—disciplines that concentrate on the whole person rather than on dis- ease processes—could inform training in medical ethics in a range of contexts. Joshua Hauser, Assistant Director of the Northwestern Univer- sity Buehler Center on Aging, Health & Society, noted that ethical issues in palliative care include medical futility, informed consent, assisted sui- cide, autonomy, and team responsibility. Efforts to improve education in palliative care are led by the Educa- tion in Palliative and End-of-life Care Project, which has included a fo- cus on ethics education. Students have complained that ethics training can be too abstract or boring. The following are some basic principles found to improve the teaching of ethics to health professionals: • Make it real—use real patients and real situations. • Make it novel—challenge the students’ assumptions and use new approaches to connect the patient and student. • Make it engaging. • Make it convenient. • Make it relevant.

28 MILITARY MEDICAL ETHICS: ISSUES REGARDING DUAL LOYALTIES Hauser has found the greatest success in teaching ethics by engaging students directly in both structured and unstructured situations and apply- ing novel education methods, such as multiprofessional conversations (sometimes termed “Schwartz Center Rounds” 8 ), role play, videotaped interviews with patients, and community settings. (For illustrative pur- poses, he played a videotape excerpt of an interview with a terminally ill lung cancer patient discussing her interactions with comfort caregivers.) Videos allow the instructor to bring out different aspects of the patient’s care and specific ethical issues while focusing on the realities of the situation. Opportunities for ethics training exist throughout the training proc- ess. For example, in the first two years of medical school, students can follow patients longitudinally under close faculty supervision. During clinical years, students can interact with patients in different contexts and will encounter broader issues through interactions with family members and others involved in the care of the patient. Discussion Howe, who moderated the session, asked whether more patient- centered videos should be produced to serve as a core method of teaching medical ethics and, if so, when they should be shown and to whom. Schor answered that they should be shown at the start of medical mis- sions and commented that in the onboard exercises, participants such as military physicians and Project HOPE volunteers enjoyed learning each other’s perspectives. Emerging information technologies offer exciting opportunities for disseminating and sharing information, opinions, and experiences regarding ethical challenges. Developing ethics training that is real, practical, and timely requires choosing material that relates to the learning objectives. Policy issues can be perceived from the top down, such as who decides, or from the bot- tom up, such as how to deal with uncertainties. Problems that arise in medical practice often can be identified by asking students to recount an experience when they were not sure of the right action to take. While 8 Schwartz Center Rounds engage physicians, nurses, social workers, students, and other health professionals in interdisciplinary rounds in the hospital or other health care setting. Named for an attorney in Massachusetts who felt that his professional caregivers needed to improve their communications with each other, the Kenneth B. Schwartz Cen- ter funds these efforts around the country (Kenneth B. Schwartz Center, 2008).

WORKSHOP SUMMARY 29 preserving the productive and important tension between commanders and military health professionals, continuing education provides a means for discerning the two groups’ mutual interests and learning practical ways of realizing them. INSTILLING ETHICAL VALUES: ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE AND CULTURE The participants in the fourth panel discussion considered how or- ganizational structure and culture can affect, nurture, and sustain ethical values. Organizations are living systems that have moral capacity and that are accountable to stakeholders for their standards of purpose and value. Session moderator Linda Emanuel, Director of the Northwestern University Buehler Center on Aging, Health & Society, explained that such standards determine an organization’s culture, structure, processes, and outcomes. Emanuel said that the present discourse between the medical profession and the military should lead to standards that would apply across sectors and disciplines—which have interdependent and balanced roles—and could evolve through continuous learning. Nurturing a Just Culture What is a just organization? David T. Ozar, Professor of Philosophy at Loyola University of Chicago, posited that a just organization affirms the role it assigns to its members to make complex ethics-laden deci- sions. Further, it supports these decisions by providing necessary com- munications, education, and other organizational processes. A just organization communicates openly about decisions after the fact to effect improvements, and it commends rather than punishes individuals for bringing ethical issues to light. At all levels, Ozar suggested, a just or- ganization demonstrates adherence to its professed values. Organizations can influence ethical conduct, according to Ozar, through positive impact on their members’ ethical awareness, judgment, motivation, and implementation. A just organization, he said, • fosters a rich awareness of, and sensibility for, its stated values and ideals, not just in generalities but in ways linked to actual decisions “on the ground,” rather than leaving individuals to

30 MILITARY MEDICAL ETHICS: ISSUES REGARDING DUAL LOYALTIES their own devices, and it tests its structures and processes to en- sure that they are producing ethical results; • emphasizes the complexity of ethical decisions and the difficult judgments they require, provides resources to support individu- als’ ethical reflection and judgment, and commends individuals for displaying such reflection and judgment (e.g., in the military context, neither commanders in theater nor superiors within the medical hierarchy should expect physicians to act in isolation or blame them for ethical decisions not anticipated by rules and regulations); • supports the positive motivations of its members by focusing its systems on positive values rather than using coercion and fear to attain results, and responds to ethical lapses first of all as organ- izational issues rather than personal aberrations; and • actively assists its members to implement ethics consistently by identifing barriers to ethical conduct, developing a repertoire of interventions to assist individuals in making ethical decisions, and establishing a communication system for promoting ethical decision making before, during, and after an event. In this con- nection, most lapses in implementation can be attributed either to psychological barriers, such as fear and hopelessness, or practi- cal barriers, in which the individual does not know how to decide or where to turn for consultation. To illustrate the importance of dialogue about these components of ethical conduct with members of an organization at all levels, Ozar re- counted the changes at one hospital that occurred through asking em- ployees about impediments to realizing the hospital’s core values. After hearing a patient transport assistant’s concern about having to leave pa- tients isolated on gurneys without a way for them to summon assistance, the hospital responded by reconfiguring the units so that waiting patients could see and be seen by a receptionist. Respectful and serious conversa- tions with people on the ground can lead to important systems and organ- izational changes that can markedly increase the chances that the organization’s values and ethical standards will be actualized in its mem- bers’ judgments and conduct.

WORKSHOP SUMMARY 31 Leadership and Vertical Integration No substitute exists for leadership that is explicitly, materially (through the dedication of resources), and passionately committed to the ethical pursuit of an organization’s mission. Daniel D. Federman, Profes- sor of Medicine and Medical Education at Harvard Medical School, said that the commander sets the tone and that, ideally, the highest levels of leadership communicate their commitment to ethics with the same em- phasis as other goals. Federman stressed the need to review allegations of ethical infractions quickly and as publicly as possible. An ombudsperson function was added at Harvard Medical School over 17 years ago to hear and investigate, confidentially, complaints about administrative malfunctions—or, more broadly, any institution- related concerns. An ombudsperson is, in large measure, a listener, with access to many sources of information and the responsibility to report on anonymous complaints. The Harvard ombudsperson issues a broadly dis- seminated annual report that reveals patterns and trends; in this way, an individual’s confidential complaint carries weight as part of aggregated information. For example, frequently expressed complaints have led to improvements, or at least heightened sensitivity, in the areas of sexual harassment, research integrity, and intellectual property at the medical school. Reports are provided by the ombudsperson’s office in many set- tings to get the messages to multiple key audiences in the medical school, including the administration, faculty, new employees, managers, mentors, and the human relations office. The cumulative impact of the ombuds function is to hold up a mirror, allowing the institution to re- shape itself if it does not like what it sees, said Federman. Learning and Accountability in Organizational Structures What are next steps in making organizations more ethically attuned? Emanuel discussed building learning and layered accountability into or- ganizations. Ensuring that organizations act ethically requires layered stages of professional voices, including an external voice, she said, as well as organizational feedback, deliberation, organized advocacy, and disobedience when necessary. Conflicts of interest provide an example of an ethical problem that can be addressed through a set of approaches appropriate to the level of ethical concern. Under current rules in force in most settings, some con-

32 MILITARY MEDICAL ETHICS: ISSUES REGARDING DUAL LOYALTIES flicts are flatly prohibited, some are limited, and some are merely dis- closed, depending on a variety of factors, namely, the sum of money at stake, the proximity of the conflict to patient care, and the values in- volved. Checks and balances within an organizational structure are not necessarily sufficient to prevent undue conflicts of interest from arising. For example, at the American Medical Association (AMA), accountabil- ity appeared to translate well into the structure. However, in 1997 AMA entered into a marketing agreement with the Sunbeam Corporation 9 that violated the organization’s ethical principles. In addressing this situation, AMA found that the problem had resulted from a lack of transparency coupled with poor decision making. The challenge after a major lapse is to learn from the mistakes and work to restore positive culture and lead- ership, Emanuel said. Structural mechanisms useful for promoting medical ethics within a health care organization include • peer review; • advisory boards; • institutional review boards, for investigative research; • systems engineering and continuous learning and improvement (in the patient safety area, for example, effective approaches in- corporate teamwork and opportunities for speaking against the authority gradient and for both anonymous and compulsory re- porting of lapses); and • involvement of multiple professions, such as clergy, educators, and social workers. As the military continues in its efforts as a learning organization, it is important to identify, refine, and institutionalize mechanisms for contin- ued deliberation on issues in military medical ethics. Discussion The panel members had an opportunity for discussion followed by general discussion with the workshop participants. One barrier to organi- zation-wide ethical behavior is the “myth of enough good people,” Ozar 9 The marketing agreement allowed Sunbeam to display the AMA logo on packages of its products, regardless of whether the product provided a demonstrated health benefit.

WORKSHOP SUMMARY 33 remarked. According to this myth, if we just recruit enough good peo- ple—the best and the brightest—into our organization, we will not have any ethical problems. Lieutenant General Eric Schoomaker, U.S. Army Surgeon General, commented that the discussion in the workshop had recognized that the ethical issues faced by military health professionals are a microcosm of ethical issues faced by the larger medical community in the United States. Some ethical conflicts arise from situations in which there is a misunderstanding about servicemember’s rights, such as the right of the individual, under ordinary circumstances, to refuse treatment. Further efforts are needed to continue to examine competing ethical principles and to explore the concerns about security to ensure the highest level of transparency that is feasible. Several participants noted that there are a number of organizational structures in place in the military that support whistle-blowing, including ombudsperson offices and ethics experts who are outside the normal chain of command. Although these structures appear to be transparent and known by military health professionals, they are apparently less fa- miliar to their civilian counterparts. CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS The workshop concluded with James Childress summarizing the day’s discussions, Joseph Kelley providing his thoughts on next steps, and workshop participants presenting final thoughts. Childress summarized the presentations and discussions during the workshop in the following 10 points: 1. The need for transparency in policies and processes related to military ethics was affirmed, as were the challenges in further achieving it both internally and externally. 2. Military medical ethics discussions benefit from a wide range of public and professional perspectives. 3. In addressing medical ethics issues, we need to attend— imaginatively and thoughtfully—to diverse social and cultural views, beliefs, and practices. 4. Organizational structures, systems, training, and procedures need to be in place so that individual actors do not have to act hero- ically to ensure ethically proper decisions.

34 MILITARY MEDICAL ETHICS: ISSUES REGARDING DUAL LOYALTIES 5. International and domestic laws supporting medical ethics are essential but do not obviate the need for ethical analysis. 6. Codes of ethics help to guide ethical behavior by physicians and other health professionals but are not specific enough to address each individual ethical issue that comes up in clinical practice. 7. Similarities and differences between dual loyalties in the military and dual loyalties in other fields, such as occupational and sports medicine, are illuminating and instructive. 8. Patient trust in health care professionals is vital, yet difficult to engender in circumstances of dual loyalty. 9. Ethical dilemmas can be either intra-agent—reflecting situations when different moral principles conflict—or inter-agent, such as between a military commander and a physician. 10. Ethical decision making requires more than prioritizing separate principles, such as autonomy and beneficence. The principles must be made concrete and ways found to be as specific as pos- sible about how to apply them in practice. Childress emphasized this last point by stating that ethical principles alone may not provide enough practical guidance. Ongoing efforts fo- cused on defining specific ethical responsibilities are needed in certain settings. Kelley began his summary of the workshop by highlighting the con- cept of the triad—patient, physician, commander—and emphasizing the need for communication. Although the workshop focused primarily on the policy perspective, it will be important for future discussions, Kelley noted, to focus on the perspective of the practitioner. Kelley stressed that the military is not monolithic but has provisions in place for military health professionals to exercise their right of conscience, including sup- port for health professionals who have ethical concerns and are seeking to determine ethical courses of action. This right applies to physicians who are dealing with situations such as hunger strikes. He noted, too, that the organization is what makes the individual effective while realiz- ing that national security concerns must be addressed. Opportunities for ethics training can draw from the models presented in the workshop. Kelley emphasized the need for as much transparency as possible. He encouraged allegations of situations of concern to be shared with available information so that they can be investigated. Further, he em- phasized the need for continued dialogue on ethical issues between the military and civilian medical communities.

WORKSHOP SUMMARY 35 In the discussion that followed, participants raised several points, in- cluding • The hunger strike case study demonstrates the need for further development of ethical guidelines for military health profession- als as well as further discussions to more fully understand the na- ture of ethical concerns and the extent of opportunities for professional autonomy by military health professionals. • The military is not monolithic, and military physicians have sub- stantial professional autonomy, so similar dilemmas can produce different results. • Further discussions are needed on the structures or systems that the military has (or could have) in place to assist not only physi- cians but also other health professionals, such as psychologists, in situations where they are serving as behavioral science con- sultants. • The military has provided greatly increased guidance on medical ethics since 2006, including a substantial body of policy and standard operating procedures at the operational level. The DoD continues to be a learning organization on issues raised by de- tainee treatment—including hunger strikes, forensic roles, and training—and dual loyalty. • Increased attention to ensuring the transparency of DoD policy, guidelines, and protocols is an ongoing need with the under- standing that national security issues will be addressed. There is strong interest in continuing to find common ground and in dis- cussing ethical issues integral to hunger strike management, in- terrogation policies, and other related issues. Discussion also focused on additional next steps for open dialogue, including the formation of advisory committees to DoD through either the National Academies or other entities. These types of committees can review events involving challenging ethical components and recommend policy improvements, a mechanism that has been used by other national security–related agencies. Recent and ongoing changes in the Defense Health Board in this direction were noted, and appreciation was ex- pressed for the opportunity in this workshop to have open and reasoned dialogue with individuals with a wide range of expertise and interest. Several participants noted that interrogation issues have been controver-

36 MILITARY MEDICAL ETHICS: ISSUES REGARDING DUAL LOYALTIES sial, and it was suggested that a forum specifically exploring these issues might be useful.

Next: Appendix A: References »
Military Medical Ethics: Issues Regarding Dual Loyalties: Workshop Summary Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $29.00 Buy Ebook | $23.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Dual loyalties exist in many medical fields, from occupational health to public health. Military health professionals, as all health professionals, are ethically responsible for their patients' well-being. In some situations, however, military health professionals can face unique ethical tensions between responsibilities to individual patients and responsibilities to military operations.

This book summarizes the one-day workshop, Military Medical Ethics: Issues Regarding Dual Loyalties, which brought together academic, military, human rights, and health professionals to discuss these ethical challenges. The workshop examined two case studies: decisions regarding returning a servicemember to duty after a closed head injury, and decisions on actions by health professionals regarding a hunger strike by detainees. The workshop also addressed the need for improvements in medical ethics training and outlined steps for organizations to take in supporting better ethical awareness and use of ethical standards.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!