Medical Neutrality & Political Activism

“The argument for public political neutrality suggests that physicians as politically neutral agents maximise the amount of care they can provide to the wounded and sick…Political activism compromises the safety of physicians and their patients…Physician political neutrality may allow physicians to better protect already vulnerable patients and themselves, a position which could potentially be jeopardised through political activism. Physicians practising impartially in health care delivery and political neutrality attempt to maximise health for the most people. Additionally, by providing need-based care, it may be more likely that opposing factions will view medical personnel as neutral and treat them as such (medical neutrality in the protective sense)…(so) it may be prudentially wise for physicians to stay political neutral. Yet, this neutrality does not necessarily aid in the prevention of health crisis in the first place…The prevention of ill health should be a primary goal alongside restoring health. The decision to remain politically neutral is an assessment of the relative risks and benefits all involved parties can expect, rather than as a result of a deontological principle. While there are many pragmatic reasons for remaining neutral, it is a position that fails to encompass the wider duties of physicians. Respecting persons and treating them equally entails preventing further harm to the populations being served—not just mitigating present health crisis…Physicians should be equally concerned with preventing health care emergencies (public health role) as with the medically neutral provision of care…(clinical role), especially when the information they know lends to the prevention of injury.”

List J.M. (2008) Medical Neutrality and Political Activism: Physicians' Roles in Conflict Situations. In: Allhoff F. (eds) Physicians at War. International Library of Ethics, Law, and the New, vol 41. Springer, Dordrecht