| Title |
Why Did U.S. Healthcare Professionals Become Involved in Torture During the War on Terror?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, June 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11673-016-9729-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Myles Balfe |
| Abstract |
This article examines why U.S. healthcare professionals became involved in "enhanced interrogation," or torture, during the War on Terror. A number of factors are identified including a desire on the part of these professionals to defend their country and fellow citizens from future attack; having their activities approved and authorized by legitimate command structures; financial incentives; and wanting to prevent serious harm from occurring to prisoners/detainees. The factors outlined here suggest that psychosocial factors can influence health professionals' ethical decision-making. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 18% |
| Spain | 1 | 9% |
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 1 | 9% |
| Russia | 1 | 9% |
| United States | 1 | 9% |
| Jamaica | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 4 | 36% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 10 | 91% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 9% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 29 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 5 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 14% |
| Researcher | 4 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 4 | 14% |
| Unknown | 6 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 10 | 34% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 14% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 10% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 7% |
| Philosophy | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Unknown | 7 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 July 2016.
All research outputs
#6,368,923
of 25,196,456 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#229
of 659 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,143
of 334,350 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#3
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,196,456 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 659 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 334,350 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.