+972 Magazine's Stories of the Week

Directly In Your Inbox

Analysis News
Visit our Hebrew site, "Local Call" , in partnership with Just Vision.

Violence sparks medical ethics fight in Israel

The medical establishment in Israel has come under fierce attack for abiding by the fundamental ethic of treating the most seriously wounded first — no matter who they are and what they have done.

A medic wheels away an Israeli security guard who was stabbed by two Palestinian boys at a tramway station in the settlement neighborhood of Pisgat Zeev in annexed East Jerusalem on November 10, 2015. (Oren Ziv/Activestills)

A medic wheels away an Israeli security guard who was stabbed by two Palestinian boys at a tramway station in the settlement neighborhood of Pisgat Zeev in East Jerusalem on November 10, 2015. (Oren Ziv/Activestills)

With the current escalation in violence throughout Israel-Palestine showing no signs of abating, the issue of medical ethics has found itself at the center of public debate in Israel. The small storm erupted following a recent decision by the Israel Medical Association to implement the internationally accepted standard of medical neutrality at the scene of a terror attacks, a standard that mandates the non-discriminatory treatment of the sick and injured even in times of conflict. Under this principle, medics are tasked with saving as many lives as possible, no matter the background, identity and actions of the patient.

The public debate began with an argument that erupted recently on Israeli radio between the head of Magen David Adom, Eli Bein, and Yehuda Meshi Zahav, the chairman of ZAKA — an organization of community medical volunteers — over who should be treated first at the scene of an attack.

Bein argued for medical neutrality, saying that MDA’s rule is to “treat the most seriously wounded person who is in life-threatening danger,” no matter who is the attacker and who is the victim. Zahav retorted that if it’s a terrorist, he shouldn’t be helped at all, let alone before others.

Following the debate Hadas Ziv, the director of Public Outreach at Physicians for Human Rights in Israel, investigated the matter further and found a paper published by the Israel Medical Association in 2008, with one troubling clause that allowed for medical professionals to treat victims first under the principle of “charity begins at home.”

Ziv wrote a complaint to the the IMA on the grounds that this clause violated medical neutrality. The IMA clause had “no precedent in any other medical ethics,” Ziv told +972 Magazine.

The IMA agreed to remove the clause. The new rules of treating according to need alone came into effect at the beginning of this week.

The decision provoked a front-page splash in freesheet Israel Hayom, which focused on the fact that this code of ethics may result in whoever carried a terror attack being treated before their victims if they are more severely wounded. The paper featured a response from IDF “philosopher” Asa Kasher — who developed the fallacious concept of “enemy civilians” while authoring the IDF’s own code of ethics — saying that in exceptional circumstances, the accepted medical standards are not sufficient.

Medics evacuate an Israeli man who was wounded by a Palestinian assailant in West Jerusalem, October 13, 2015. (Yotam Ronen/Activestills.org)

Medics evacuate an Israeli man who was wounded by a Palestinian assailant in West Jerusalem, October 13, 2015. (Yotam Ronen/Activestills.org)

Former foreign minister MK Avigdor Liberman, who is no stranger to inflammatory comments, called on the head of the Israel Medical Association to resign in the wake of his “shameful decision to treat the most wounded first, even if they are a terrorist. This is a non-humanitarian decision, taken by someone who…has lost their moral compass.” The head of the IMA, Dr. Leonid Eidelman, responded [Heb] on Wednesday that no one would resign, emphasizing that “medical considerations come above all others.”

Dr. Eidelman also clarified that medics in Israel had always acted in accordance with medical neutrality, but once they realized that the clause Ziv was referring to could contradict that ethic, they took the decision to remove it.

Rabbi Yuval Cherlow, one of the founders of a leading rabbinical organization in Israel and a member of the Ministry of Health’s ethics committee, also criticized the decision.

Meanwhile, the Ministry of Health itself has remained silent throughout the controversy, a state of affairs that Ziv finds “extremely strange. The Israel Medical Association removes this clause in line with international ethics and comes under attack for it, and yet the Ministry of Health says nothing?”

ZAKA, for its part, has announced that its volunteers will continue treating victims before perpetrators, regardless of severity of wounds.

At the heart of human rights

Despite what Liberman may believe, the decision of the IMA is entirely humanitarian. The duty of those in the medical profession to practice neutrality is enshrined in the Geneva Convention and lies at the heart of the work of organizations such as PHR and Doctors Without Borders, which gives priority to those in the “most serious and immediate danger.”

“A doctor is not a judge, not an executioner, nor a policeman,” Ziv stressed. “They should act according to their professional codes of ethics.”

The issue is a highly emotive one and understandably jars with many people’s personal convictions, especially given the current severity of the situation in Israel-Palestine. Yet this is a matter that transcends politics, conflicts and individual opinions. It is one of the foundational principles of medical practice, which itself reflects the most inviolable of human rights: the right to life.

This moral imperative dictates that we respect others’ right to live, even if they do not respect ours. It is a principle that for many will be sorely tested at a time of seemingly endless violence, but without which our humanity is lost to us entirely. That political and spiritual figures and the most widely-read newspaper in Israel can so readily call this into question based on where their personal feelings lie is deeply worrying. As Ziv said, if we begin asking medical professionals to adapt their practice to their own moral judgements and political persuasions, it would be the “end of medicine as we know it.”

To further imply that medics who are simply adhering to the internationally accepted ethics are somehow violating the state’s morals is a reckless precedent to be setting. That’s even more true at a time when the atmosphere in the country has crossed the line from febrile into combustible and the level of tolerance for perceived deviations from the party line is shrinking by the day.

The increasing appetite for identifying and outing “enemies of the state” is already at dangerous levels, with those liable to be branded traitors reaching ever-greater numbers. Adding medical professionals to that category for the “crime” of impartiality has potential consequences that do not bear thinking about.

Calling this ethical standard into doubt also leaves behind a raft of disturbing questions: What if the Ministry of Health reinstates the clause to practice discriminatory triage at the site of an attack or in a hospital afterwards? What if a doctor refuses this order — will they be barred from practicing medicine, or subject to criminal proceedings? Who will ultimately hold the reins of medical ethics in Israel — the medical experts themselves? Or politicians?

Newsletter banner

Before you go...

A lot of work goes into creating articles like the one you just read. And while we don’t do this for the money, even our model of non-profit, independent journalism has bills to pay.

+972 Magazine is owned by our bloggers and journalists, who are driven by passion and dedication to the causes we cover. But we still need to pay for editing, photography, translation, web design and servers, legal services, and more.

As an independent journalism outlet we aren’t beholden to any outside interests. In order to safeguard that independence voice, we are proud to count you, our readers, as our most important supporters. If each of our readers becomes a supporter of our work, +972 Magazine will remain a strong, independent, and sustainable force helping drive the discourse on Israel/Palestine in the right direction.

Support independent journalism in Israel/Palestine Donate to +972 Magazine today
View article: AAA
Share article
Print article

    * Required


    1. Ginger Eis

      Before terrorist set out to indiscriminately kill their unsuspecting victims: babies, children, teenagers, women and men, they prepare themselves by going through a series of Islamic rituals for the dead and washing themselves ritually in accordance with the Islamic doctrine. After that, the clock of death and mayhem starts to tick and woe is (s)he who crosses their path!

      Injustice = equal treatment of unequal cases (and that is not extremely complicated to understand);

      Injustice = unequal treatment of equal cases (that also not extremely complicated to understand);

      The murderer (e.g. a grown 34yrs old coward male-jihadi whose name shall not be mentioned) who walks up to his unsuspecting murder-victim (e.g. the 21yrs old girl, Hadar Buchris), pulls out a meat-cleaver and starts butchering her to death is NOT the same as his innocent victim (may G-d help her parents, brothers and sisters heal and recover from the gaping holes of devastating grief and sorrow left in their hearts by this horrendous murder). Medically treating both cases as same/equal results – legally – to grave and nauseating injustice, and – morally – to egregious, immoral false moral-equivalence that borders on criminality! THAT – is Common Sense. THAT – is Common Sense buried deep in the heart of the law! That is the reason why the IMA may not assume to be a legal Authority even as it knows the law NOT.


      KILL the terrorist and make sure he’s DEAD and COLD! IF you feel the need to save the terrorist’s life (as do most of our super-moral IDF-soldiers!), then PLS. save the victim’s life FIRST and throw whatever bone that remains to the terrorist.

      Let Common Sense prevail.

      End Of Story!

      Reply to Comment
      • Ben

        Practicing medicine too without a license? Did you make a list of every nuance and every subtle, humane thought Natasha Roth had, checked it twice, and then set out to trample each one into dust? Shrieking “KILL…DEAD…COLD.” Let the good Israeli doctors practice as they see fit. Who are you to tell them what to do? You tread with roughshod boots over a sacred principle. Eis, if Palestinian doctors took up the same ethic you would be the first to brand them savages. You think they don’t see your soldiers as terrorists the same way you see them?:

        Reply to Comment
        • Merkava

          Another rambling gibberish from this resident jerk, BEN. Did you even read what Ginger posted, or are you too dense and confused to follow her logic?

          “Injustice = equal treatment of unequal cases (and that is not extremely complicated to understand); Injustice = unequal treatment of equal cases (that also not extremely complicated to understand)”.

          That kind of sums up the whole debate. That, apparently and contrary to Ginger’s assumption, is quite complicated for BEN to comprehend.

          Apparently BEN does not understand that medical ethic cannot be detached from law and that the law determines the governing ethics in medicine. It seems BEN’s ineptitude is boundless. Woof!

          Reply to Comment
        • The whole point, Ben, is to limit on site violence to that needed to contain the assailant. Anything further usurps the power of the courts. This issue is as much constitutional as humanitarian. To extend violence beyond containment is to allow either the State via soldier, police or citizen usurp the filter of trial before punishment. Law becomes what emotions of the moment demand.

          This, on top of the stabbings, is yet another tragedy.

          Reply to Comment