Commenting last week, I noted a Law And Order episode where the psychiatrist's participation in developing an interrogation program had the Medical Examiner (also a physician) equating the psychiatrists to Dr. Mengele. In that episode, the psychiatrist had her license revoked. This is not a trumped up television theme nor is it necessarily restricted to psychiatry or the field of medicine as a whole.

The idea of medicine at war, beyond treating the wounded or psychologically damaged victims, has been a fearful specter since the liberation of Auschwitz and Buchenwald. Possibly even longer such as the terrible conditions of Union prisoners at Antitiem during the Civil War where confederate doctors at the prison were later charged with what is now referred to as "War Crimes" and sentenced for their part. Most of that stemmed from the inability or lack of effort to treat some of the worst afflicted, to demand care for their "patients" who were disease ridden and sometimes starving. Images of emaciated prisoners were not first introduced to society during World War II, but have long been associated with the worst evils of war.

Add to that years of horror movies and books featuring crazed doctors who experimented on their patients or otherwise performed bizarre surgeries for no other reason but inflicting pain and we are programmed to believe that physicians who are not in the usual settings of medicine, such as hospitals v. prison camps, are likely committing unspeakable acts against their Hippocratic Oath: First Do No Harm.

[continued in flash traffic]

Both of these fields include "oaths" upon receiving a doctorate that is similar to the Hippocratic Oath. Doctors of anthropology take oaths that basically swear not to damage any culture or society by their actions. War is one of the ultimate destroyers of culture and society. Thus, many have sought to discredit those who participated in the development of the counter-insurgency manual or participated as advisers to the military as having broken their oaths.

However, doctorates of anthropology and sociology are academic doctorates. They do not generally have "hands on" practice with "patients" as in medicine where they could directly effect or cause harm to a patient. Writing a treatise on the effect of war on a population, discussing how populations are radicalized or other documents that could be used by the military to inform and create a better counter-insurgency model cannot be construed as directly damaging a society or culture. If it could, then many more anthropologists and sociologists who were not part of Petraeus' team would be culpable. Particularly as there have been many books and other professional writings outside of of the select that have been referenced.

While anthropologists who directly participated may be attacked in professional journals or public gatherings, there is little that can legally be done to chastise or punish any who do participate. Their "license" is not in jeopardy. Unofficial or extra-judicious punishment, such as refusals to publish papers in professional journals, refusing tenure or even hiring at universities and other such professional destruction can be and probably have been administered. It certainly has been called for by many of their colleagues.

Academic and medical purists alike seem intent on insuring that a clearly demarcated line exists. For purist anthropologists and sociologists, the line seems clear to some: study ancient and existing cultures is fine, but do not participate in any way, shape or form in something, like war, that is bound to change it. For those who have participated, the issue is not so simple. When war comes, as it always does, societies and cultures will change irrevocably in small ways and large. What if that participation can limit or mitigate those changes by improving understanding of those cultures and possibly shorten the war? Thus limiting the damage?

And, if at the same time it helps create the conditions for winning a war, is there an actual conundrum? Particularly as, even without participation and may be more so, the war will go on, people will die and society will change? Even the society or culture that is not on the front lines of battle will be changed by war including vocabulary, politics, architecture and general habits. Is the anthropologist and sociologist consigned to do nothing more than watch, record and comment on the events? Even if that scientist believes that their own society and culture could be irrevocably damaged or destroyed?

Are they, in fact, to choose between simply observing, even as their own society is threatened or destroyed, or to throw down their gifts and education to literally pick up the sword to fight for that preservation? In order to preserve a moral line that, in the case of medicine, may be more specific, but in academia is nearly non-existent since their actions cannot be construed as directly and physically harming someone?

Further, does the argument, "first do no harm", against the use of social sciences in war present both historical and future conflicts? Or effect other programs that have become common place and are rarely questioned?

For instance, historically, during World War II the Department of War (now the Department of Defense) contracted a long distance psychological analysis of Adolf Hitler in order to evaluate both his likely actions and potential methods to defeat him. Some of the analysis was fairly accurate such as possible Oedipal Complex, problems with physical relations and the fact that Hitler was not likely to surrender, but would become more destructive and possibly annihilate himself and others around him.

Other aspects of the report were not as accurate, but can be excused since those involved did not have direct access to the "patient" or years of historical, comparative profiles. The findings, however, were used to create propaganda against Hitler as well as may have played some part in the decision not to negotiate an end to the war, but push on to final destruction of Nazi Germany. With intelligence indicating new and more deadly weapons being created by the Nazis, such as the atomic bomb, the risk of allowing such a dangerous nation, man and ideology to exist was too great. Though, the last may have been as easily deduced by any layman considering several years of war, intelligence regarding weapons manufacturing and regarding the horrors of death squads and concentration camps.

The question here is whether any modern philosophical discussions or expanded interpretation of professional oaths taints the psychiatrists and other lettered professionals who took part in that analysis. They were, in fact, using their skills and education in the furtherance of war. Not just any war, but total war where in millions were killed.

Is suspension of judgment allowed on the basis that it was considered a war of survival as opposed to the modern intuition that wars for survival no longer exist or survival is less important than existential academic, moralistic purity ? Or, is it simply dismissed as an historic anomaly during extraordinary times that is supposed to have no bearing on modern expectations or expanded interpretations on morality?

Is the use of social sciences and medicine in other venues also prohibited by such an expansive interpretation? For instance, modern psychology, sociology, anthropology and medicine are used in the apprehension of criminals. Some of whom, upon capture and trial, are subject to the death penalty. Should a psychiatrist or psychologist who develops a criminal profile or a medical examiner who deduces criminal evidence from the examination of a body or even a genetic scientist who compares DNA from a crime or even an anthropologist who examines the bones of a victim be held accountable for the final distribution of justice that could result in the death of another?

In these cases, is the practice of their craft sufficiently insulated from the outcome because they do not write the laws nor directly apply them? Or, because the final outcome is decided by judge and jury outside of the doctor's professional confines?

If this argument seems too expansionist itself, it is not because the questions are not applicable to the argument, but because the original argument against participation is itself a tenuous expansion of morals.

The original intent of the Hippocratic Oath was basically to admonish physicians to be circumspect and not render a cure that was worse than the disease. Likewise, anthropologists in the field were being admonished against their own acts that could directly damage cultural artifacts or an existing society. Such as introducing modern tools or even diseases into previously closed societies or destroying sacred sites of an existing or extinct society that could damage the historical value or change that society irrevocably.

Historically, both the medical, scientific and academic fields have perpetrated some terrible practices in the name of their profession. Everything from "bleeding" patients to eliminate innumerable mental and physical maladies then associated with the blood to the removal of the friezes from the Acropolis in Athens to the study, acceptance and wide spread utilization of "eugenics" at the turn of the twentieth century. One could argue that advances in medicine, sciences and academic understanding have improved all three professions and eliminated some of the worst practices.

One could even argue that acknowledging historical mistakes or outright horrific acts, such as Dr. Mengele's, experiments have resulted in rightly expanding the interpretation of the Hippocratic Oath, prohibiting inhumane acts against undefended and coerced subjects. Yet, the seeming proscription of participation by anthropologists in even the simplest capacity of adviser seems to be less about the practice of anthropology or any developed sense of the morality of an oath and more about the overall argument on the morality of war. Particularly, this war.

Does the view of any conflict make a difference as to whether an act is "moral" or not? If yes, then would any actor or act in a war be immoral even if it was in any other venue or occasion considered implicitly "moral" by society?

It's a question that needs to be answered. Particularly, as science advances, it becomes more and more intertwined with everyday life. Even a necessity. It is more likely that science and medicine will become more ingrained and, thus, less separable from the dilemmas that face the rest of humanity that it serves, such as war.

Like medicine, anthropology and other social sciences should stop resisting participation and, instead, set forth more deliberative thoughts on what, when and how that participation will be utilized along with acceptable limits.

"First do no harm" cannot mean do not write a book about societies and cultures at war and don't tell the commander in the field about the social or cultural norms of a society. If it does, medicine and social sciences may self-destruct trying to determine culpability.