Prolonged immigration detention, complicity and boycotts

Abstract

Australia's punitive policy towards people seeking asylum deliberately causes severe psychological harm and meets recognised definitions of torture. Consequently, there is a tension between doctors' obligation not to be complicit in torture and doctors' obligation to provide best possible care to their patients, including those seeking asylum. In this paper, we explore the nature of complicity and discuss the arguments for and against a proposed call for doctors to boycott working in immigration detention. We conclude that a degree of complicity is unavoidable when working in immigration detention, but that it may be ethically justifiable. We identify ways to minimise the harms associated with complicity and argue that it is ethical to continue working in immigration detention as long as due care and attention is paid to minimising the harms of complicity.

Should clinicians boycott Australian immigration detention?

“…Other authors have turned to Lepora and Goodin’s36 framework of moral complicity to begin to analyse these issues. Weighing the costs and benefits of current engagement, while also identifying a number of ways clinicians may be able to reduce their contribution to wrongdoing while working within immigration detention, Jansen et al 37 conclude that, on balance, clinicians should continue to work in detention:…”

Duty of care

“…The moral obligation of a duty of care is not necessarily paramount. Prolonged immigration detention meets the United Nations definition of psychological torture . Doctors employed to work in immigration detention facilities may argue they have a duty of care to their patients, who might otherwise be worse off and come to harm.…”

“…Doctors employed to work in immigration detention facilities may argue they have a duty of care to their patients, who might otherwise be worse off and come to harm. However, their very involvement means they are arguably being complicit, at least to a degree, with torture . The doctors' duty of care conflicts with this complicity with torture; if they continue to work in immigration detention centres, they have a moral obligation to practice with humanity and to speak out publicly against the harms .…”

“…However, their very involvement means they are arguably being complicit, at least to a degree, with torture . The doctors' duty of care conflicts with this complicity with torture; if they continue to work in immigration detention centres, they have a moral obligation to practice with humanity and to speak out publicly against the harms . If a child with mental health problems caused by prolonged offshore immigration detention is finally transferred to Australia, as is increasingly happening, our moral obligation to repair the damage inflicted by our government is as great, or even greater, than our obligation to treat any Australian child with mental health problems.…”

“…The term duty of care is sometimes accorded almost mystical significance, as if it trumps all other moral considerations, which it clearly doesn't . In the end, perhaps we should just acknowledge that the term duty of care lacks clarity, is too woolly for doctors and should be left to the lawyers to chew over.…”