That " Hippocratic Oath " !

There is a puzzling question that will trouble many Australians with the news that a closed court in Adelaide has issued an arrest warrant for a young Australian doctor who is providing his medical skills to Islamic State in Syria.   By so doing he has broken a law that forbids "membership of a terrorist organization " and which can impose a prison sentence upon conviction of between three and twenty-five years, but first he must return to Australia to face these charges.

When he practised medicine in Australia he was known as Abu Yousef Al-Australie but he now calls himself Tareq Badawi Kamleh and he has appeared in an IS promotional video in which he professes that he is providing medical services as the basis for doing his "Jihad for Islam  " !

Taking up arms and fighting for a terrorist organization is certainly the aim of legislation that may see offenders stripped of their Australian nationality, but there seems to be a conflict between this law and the "Hippocratic Oath " that is required by the medical profession - and which serves the neutrality of "Doctors without Borders " when they minister to the wounded on both sides of conflicts.

It raises an uncomfortable comparison with the "Conscientious Objector  " claims that many people used to avoid active military service during previous wars, but which in many cases allowed them to serve as stretcher bearers.    That Hippocratic Oath that doctors take is a promise to "do no harm " - and can be widely interpreted.   If this doctor refuses to pick up a gun and in any way take part in any form of combat he could be said to be heeding that oath.  The provision of medical help to the wounded seems an obligation that no doctor could ethically refuse.

During the wars in which Australia has been involved it would be unthinkable that our medics would refuse help to enemy wounded taken prisoner.  Some could argue that there is a vast difference between a declared war between countries and what others may describe as a tribal uprising to unseat a government and force a different religion on captured people, but the humanitarian aspect is unchanged.  Conflict results in both military and civilian casualties and if medical help is available that Hippocratic oath demands that help be given.

That is the principle behind both the Red Cross and the Red Crescent  and in more recent times they have been joined by Doctors without Borders in providing humanitarian services across conflict lines.
It would be unthinkable to start prosecuting people from any of these three movements for  "giving aid to the enemy " or accusing them of "becoming a member of a terrorist organization ".   Where this young Australian doctor seems to have crossed a line is his participation in a propaganda video extolling his inclusion in Jihad by contributing his medical skills.

If and when he ever finds himself under Australian jurisdiction we can be certain that an interesting court case will eventuate if prosecution proceeds.  There is certainly a vast gap between radicalized young men who willingly join an organization that ignores international law on the treatment of prisoners and engages in both the slave trade and wilful destruction of public amenities, and a medical professional who strictly limits his activities to treating the wounded.

It will also hang a question mark over the matter of preventing those joining Jihad in Syria and Iraq from returning to Australia.   Many will think that if this young doctor believes he has done no wrong he should have the opportunity to go before an Australian court and plead his innocence.  To prevent his return is a form of guilt by decree.  It runs contrary to the requirement that guilt be proved before punishment is awarded as the basis of law in this country.

This seems to be a question that will ultimately be settled by Australia's High Court !