PAPER Is Australia engaged in torturing asylum seekers? A cautionary tale for Europe John-Paul Sanggaran, 1 Deborah Zion 2 1 University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia 2 Centre for Cultural Diversity and Well Being, Victoria University, Footscray, Victoria, Australia Correspondence to Associate Professor Deborah Zion, Centre for Cultural Diversity and Wellbeing, Victoria University, Footscray, VIC, 8001, Australia; Deborah.zion@vu.edu.au Received 22 December 2015 Revised 4 April 2016 Accepted 9 May 2016 ▸ http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/ medethics-2015-103066 To cite: Sanggaran J-P, Zion D. J Med Ethics 2016;42:420–423. ABSTRACT Australian immigration detention has been identified as perpetuating ongoing human rights violations. Concern has been heightened by the assessment of clinicians involved and by the United Nations that this treatment may in fact constitute torture. We discuss the allegations of torture within immigration detention, and the reasons why healthcare providers have an ethical duty to report them. Finally, we will discuss the protective power of ratifying the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment as a means of providing transparency and ethical guidance. Australian immigration detention has been identified as perpetuating ongoing human rights violations. 1–7 Concern has been heightened by clinicians involved and by the United Nations that the treatment of asylum seekers in detention does in fact constitute torture. 2–7 Additionally, the introduction of the Border Force Act 2015 makes advocating for patients difficult, and potentially illegal, as those doing so now put themselves at risk of 2 years incarceration. This severely hampers transparency. The medical communities’ response to this, in part, has been to endorse a joint statement calling for the ratification of the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (OPCAT). 8 The OPCAT is a United Nations treaty which has been left unratified by successive governments since Australia became a party to it in 2009. Implementation of the OPCAT would allow for monitoring of places of detention by domestic and international bodies, thus increasing transparency and acting as deterrence to human rights violations in the first instance. 5 The situation in Australia is particularly import- ant when seen in the broader context of the humanitarian crises in Syria which is forcing people to seek refuge throughout the Middle East and Europe. Australia’s mandatory detention regime, with an emphasis on deterrence, is being promoted by the likes of Australia’s former Prime Minister, Tony Abbot, with some evidence that he is being listened to. 9 This now includes the Prime Minister of the UK, David Cameron, calling for the European Union to adopt Australian styled and inspired immigration policies. 10 In what follows, we will discuss the allegations of torture within immigration detention, and the reasons why healthcare providers have a duty to report them. Finally, we will discuss the protective power of ratifying the OPCAT and the health sectors call for its ratification as well as the current consideration of a boycott. IS TORTURE OCCURRING IN AUSTRALIAN IMMIGRATION DETENTION CENTRES? There is increasing evidence that Australia is engaged in torturing asylum seekers. 1–7 There are allegations of situations, circumstances and actions that also constitute cruel and unusual punishment throughout Australian immigration detention. Submission 95 to the Parliamentary Select Committee on the Recent Allegations relating to Conditions and Circumstances at the Regional Processing Centre in Nauru 1 details allegations made by guards on Nauru of waterboarding, famil- iar to most as a torture technique that simulates drowning used by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in places like Guantanamo bay. This practice has drawn heavy international condemnation. 11 ‘Zipping’ is also alleged. It is described as tying an individual to a metal bed frame with cable ties, the bed is then thrown into the air causing injury to the bound individual when the frame crashes to the ground. 1 There is significant commentary regarding condi- tions in detention, as well behaviours endured by asylum seekers, bearing the hallmarks of torture with asylum seeker detention itself having been characterised as ‘cruel and unusual punishment’. 2–5 Dr Peter Young, former mental health medical director of International Health and Medical Services—the private company contracted to provide medical services in immigration detention —stated that: If we take the definition of torture to be the delib- erate harming of people in order to coerce them into a desired outcome, I think it does fulfil that definition. 2 The use of force feeding during hunger strikes, restraints used for deportation and the incarcer- ation of children are examples of these phenom- ena. 3 The indefinite nature of the detention, the use of numbers to refer to human beings and the harsh physical conditions of the camps add further to this picture. The United Nations special rapporteur on torture has found Australia to be in breach of the United Nations Convention Against Torture. 4 In this example, The United Nations special rappor- teur on torture, Juan Mendez, revealed an allega- tion that two asylum seekers on Manus Island, referred to as Mr A and Mr B, allege they were tied to chairs by security staff and threatened with 420 Sanggaran J-P, Zion D. J Med Ethics 2016;42:420–423. doi:10.1136/medethics-2015-103326 Asylum group.bmj.com on June 29, 2016 - Published by http://jme.bmj.com/ Downloaded from