3 ms·

> This is the only instance we are aware of where the medical profession in a country has collaborated closely, for decades, with the security apparatus to sour

> This is the only instance we are aware of where the medical profession in a country has collaborated closely, for decades, with the security apparatus to source and medically execute prisoners in order to traffic their organs. I absolutely do not want to downplay this at all, this is a horrific crime against these individuals, their families, and human dignity anywhere. I don't think the close involvement of the doctors necessarily makes this worse. The idea that medical workers are uniquely constrained from certain actions is a cultural norm, and at least partially a myth. Medical horrors are abundant in recent history, and I think we need a stronger mechanism to prevent them than social norms. It is interesting to note though that in the US, the medical profession's (inconsistent) refusal to participate in executions has been one of the practical limits on capital punishment. There are a handful of states that would execute people, but no doctors will perform the necessary time-of-death procedures and so they don't happen. But this isn't a cultural difference I don't think. There are plenty of states where doctors don't make that choice and executions proceed as desired by the state. There's also for example Israel where it's been an open secret since the 90s that organs are harvested from assassinated Palestinians. Doctors potentially have a lot of power. I am grimly curious about the circumstances that lead them to either choice, since clearly there is not consensus across the profession even within a single country or culture.

Nasrudith 5y ago
There is a cultural difference there, which at one point was relatively small. In the past of Europe medical cadavers were supposed to be confined to the bodies of executed criminals. In China historically accounts of western doctors trying to teach noted the reception, tampering with a dead body was abhorred and living criminals were the suggested alternative. Now this is in the distant past and there has been a lot of distance and divergence since then. The Hippocratic Oath has had great influnce in the west, perhaps related to the Greecoroman romanticization. To frankly guess why it survived as a meme was that the taboo against doctors killing sounds essential for trust and relatedly survival. A patient already gives up considerable control and leaves themselves vulnerable and doctors would be regarded with suspicion. It would make heterodox doctor orders something nobody would prefer since 'doctor but specifically without the oath against murdering patients when paid by somebody else' is really suspicious. Doctors already face grief misplaced anger for inevitable patient deaths, as a profession were already tampering with cadavers by neccessity and given prevalent theologies frankly a few steps away from being declared some sort of twisted heathen cult. That "open secret" sounds like an outlandish combination of scapegoating Israel by local powers looking for unity and recycled blood libel. Stop and think about the logistics of assassination, which depends upon surprise and organ harvesting, a delicate and slow process. Why not kill someone with an elaborate tattoo of poisoned ink with that combination? Trying to assassinate somebody in a landlocked city using a killer whale is more plausible. It is up there with hanging a monkey as a French spy in batshit paranoia.
- giraffe_lady 5y ago
  The hippocratic oath is what I was thinking of when I said this constraint was at least partially a myth. Large numbers of doctors in europe and north america have willingly participated in harmful non-consensual medical experiments and executions, which are clear-cut violations of the oath. Obviously I don't know how many more cases like that there would have been without its influence, but it's not a universal taboo even among western doctors. For the last thing I think you're running with a very specific meaning of "assassinate" that I did not intend, but possibly shouldn't have used for that reason. Let me rephrase it: Israeli doctors have admitted to non-consensual organ harvesting from Palestinians killed by the Israeli security apparatus in the 90s. There are credible claims that this practice continues. To me that case is similar enough that I find the original claim "this is the only instance..." distasteful. China absolutely perpetrates horrors on its citizens, but it is also clear to me that there is a manufacturing-consent process going on against China right now in english language media and social media. This is horrific but I don't think it's uniquely horrific, and I'm skeptical of trying to frame it that way.

Nasrudith 5y ago

There is a cultural difference there, which at one point was relatively small. In the past of Europe medical cadavers were supposed to be confined to the bodies of executed criminals. In China historically accounts of western doctors trying to teach noted the reception, tampering with a dead body was abhorred and living criminals were the suggested alternative. Now this is in the distant past and there has been a lot of distance and divergence since then. The Hippocratic Oath has had great influnce in the west, perhaps related to the Greecoroman romanticization. To frankly guess why it survived as a meme was that the taboo against doctors killing sounds essential for trust and relatedly survival. A patient already gives up considerable control and leaves themselves vulnerable and doctors would be regarded with suspicion. It would make heterodox doctor orders something nobody would prefer since 'doctor but specifically without the oath against murdering patients when paid by somebody else' is really suspicious. Doctors already face grief misplaced anger for inevitable patient deaths, as a profession were already tampering with cadavers by neccessity and given prevalent theologies frankly a few steps away from being declared some sort of twisted heathen cult. That "open secret" sounds like an outlandish combination of scapegoating Israel by local powers looking for unity and recycled blood libel. Stop and think about the logistics of assassination, which depends upon surprise and organ harvesting, a delicate and slow process. Why not kill someone with an elaborate tattoo of poisoned ink with that combination? Trying to assassinate somebody in a landlocked city using a killer whale is more plausible. It is up there with hanging a monkey as a French spy in batshit paranoia.

giraffe_lady 5y ago
The hippocratic oath is what I was thinking of when I said this constraint was at least partially a myth. Large numbers of doctors in europe and north america have willingly participated in harmful non-consensual medical experiments and executions, which are clear-cut violations of the oath. Obviously I don't know how many more cases like that there would have been without its influence, but it's not a universal taboo even among western doctors. For the last thing I think you're running with a very specific meaning of "assassinate" that I did not intend, but possibly shouldn't have used for that reason. Let me rephrase it: Israeli doctors have admitted to non-consensual organ harvesting from Palestinians killed by the Israeli security apparatus in the 90s. There are credible claims that this practice continues. To me that case is similar enough that I find the original claim "this is the only instance..." distasteful. China absolutely perpetrates horrors on its citizens, but it is also clear to me that there is a manufacturing-consent process going on against China right now in english language media and social media. This is horrific but I don't think it's uniquely horrific, and I'm skeptical of trying to frame it that way.