Response letter to IMA letter from Prof Yudkin

An Open Letter to Israeli Doctors who are Members of Physicians for Human Rights-Israel


Dear Colleagues

I have seen, and had translated for me, the letter of 21st July 2009 from Dr Yoram Blachar, President of the Israeli Medical Association addressed to doctors who are members of PHR-I. He explains that he feels that the actions of PHR-I in publicising internationally their concerns about medical complicity in torture is responsible for feeding ‘anti-Israeli and anti-Zionist anti-Semitism.’ He describes the petition of 725 doctors calling for his expulsion from the post of President of the World Medical Association, and the questioning to which he was subjected at the British Medical Association annual conference, implying that the attacks are coming from ‘Moslem and anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli doctors.’ I would like to challenge some of these assertions, suggesting not only that Dr Blachar and the IMA still have issues which require answers, but also that the challenges are coming from a position of human rights, and not anti-semitism.

I do not regard myself as anti-semitic: I am Jewish, have many relatives who live in Israel, and had a Jewish National Fund collection box by our telephone throughout my childhood. Yet I have raised with Dr Blachar a series of questions, about torture, about access to medical care for patients from Gaza, and about attacks on health care facilities during Operation Cast Lead, in the form of an article in the Lancet in April (attached). I contrasted the powerful position statement on torture on the IMA website with the failure of that body to respond adequately to the PCATI report, published in May 2007, in which detailed testimonies of 9 torture victims included names of medical personnel involved in their management, 6 of these being IMA members. The reasons for medical involvement varied, but included a 29-year-old man with a sacral ulcer and consequent permanent foot drop following interrogation. During this time, over a 4 day period he was intermittently tied by 4 limbs arched back over a chair with a sharp edge to the seat. In response to concerted pressure, the Chairman of the IMA Ethics Committee reported having contacted and spoken to ‘most of those listed,’ all of whom denied either any connection with the prison services or, for the 3 who were so employed, any involvement in interrogations, torture, or medical approval for this. What is missing is any evidence that the inquiry went further than these conversations, as might be expected in such circumstances. For example, was there contact with the hospitals where the prisoners were treated, or were the medical records examined?

The question which needs considering by the IMA President, its Ethics Committee, and its members, is whether the security risks facing Israel can be allowed to override human rights. Are members of PHR-I, or of the IMA, willing to accept that one in three patients being referred from Gaza for medical care is being denied entry to Israel on ‘security grounds,’ this seemingly comprising in several instances the names and telephone numbers of relatives or friends who may be Hamas sympathizers? In particular, I would contend that as the President of the WMA, Dr Blachar needs to re-examine the role of the medical profession in defending human rights. Failure to investigate to the level of accepted international norms could imply an anxiety that there is veracity in the claims. To imply that such calls are no more than a concerted anti-Israeli, or even anti-semitic, campaign is to attempt to silence critics.

The events of the last 9 months have seen a marked shift in world opinion regarding Israel. While the causes of these changes may relate, in part, to changes in policy with new governments in Israel and the US, and in part to the events surrounding Operation Cast Lead, there is undoubtedly a rising tide of anti-Israeli sentiment in many countries. But to dismiss all criticisms as the consequence of anti-semitism is naïve, particularly if this is used as an excuse for inaction, or even for failing to listen to the criticism.

Like Dr Blachar, I hope you will act in accordance with your conscience. But I have nothing but praise for an organization, like PHR-I, which is acting as a powerful tool for the national conscience, despite all the brickbats thrown in its way.

Yours sincerely
Professor John S Yudkin MD FRCP
Emeritus Professor of Medicine,
University College London