The Lancet apresenta um relato atualizado sobre a questão médicos e torturas e, proposta de punição. Ou, a participação de médicos no ato da tortura ou no acobertamento de óbitos com atestado médico falso. O relato sobre o Brasil mais atual é o da Anistia Internacional, que apresento em inglês, porque não achei a versão em português. Leia também Hipócrates traído, publicado aqui há mais de um ano.
Há menção no relato brasileiro de membros do Tortura, nunca mais condenados por calúnia de médicos. Não conheço o caso apresentado. Mas, tal como ocorreu em 1964 quando dentro de instituições havia ajustes internos de conta sem qualquer motivação político - maior exemplo, Faculdade de Medicina da USP- houve e, ainda há difamação e calúnia contra médicos que teriam colaborado com os porões da ditadura sem a mínima evidência.
Doctors’ complicity with torture. It is time for sanctions It is an arresting thought. More doctors abet torture than treat the millions of victims. More than 100 countries condone the use of torture. A third to a half of torture survivors report that a doctor oversaw the abuse. Many prisoners never see the doctors who refined the techniques to minimise evidential scars, prolong pain, or cause psychological destruction. Estimates of the numbers of torture victims do not include people whose murders disappear when a doctor writes "natural causes" on a death certificate. The medical profession ought to dissociate itself from torture—a practice that destroys institutions of civil society; that is used against colleagues of conscience, and that has far reaching adverse mental, physical, and social consequences. Instead, medical societies and licensing boards offer lofty condemnation, which is most ardently aimed at offenders abroad rather than accomplices at home. Doctors who abet torture rarely face professional risks. Governments will not punish a doctor for helping them carry out their crimes. Few medical societies or licensing boards have the courage and constancy of vision to investigate or censure colleagues who carry out the law of the land. In principle, medical societies support ethics codes like the World Medical Association’s Declaration of Tokyo, which bars doctors from complying with torture. In practice, they sustain the policy of impunity. The exceptions are instructive. The Nuremberg trial of Nazi doctors for war crimes was the birth of bioethics. That admirable court was convened by victors over defendants from a vanquished nation. But it is the wrong place to look for solutions to the common problem of doctors complying with torture. The problem today is holding doctors accountable for abetting torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment of their own citizens. Such cases have occurred after a torturing regime loses power. Brazilian medical licensing boards began investigating doctors for collaborating with torture during the last years of military rule. Initially, the government blocked sanctions against doctors; within a decade of civilian government sanctions against doctors took hold. In Greece, Dimitrios Kofas, a doctor stationed at the persecution section of a prison in Athens, was sentenced to prison within a year of the military junta being deposed. The Chilean Medical Society actively investigated complaints against doctors and expelled six doctors for overseeing torture during Pinochet’s rule. Three years after Argentina’s junta fell, Dr Jorge Berges was sentenced to prison for carrying out torture. A South African medical board tabled complaints against police doctors who failed to report or treat the fatal head injury inflicted by police on civil rights leader Steven Biko; two doctors were punished eight years after his death.