The reviewer responds.

As a careful reader, I had three concerns about the Miles book. First, most of the book is about U.S. policy regarding interrogation of prisoners, and is not directly about the participation of military physicians in these activities. These two issues ought not be conflated. Second, one must examine the documentation carefully. Miles uses many footnotes and has a journalistic writing style. This makes for an interesting read, but one must be careful about interpretation. Thus, if a medic being investigated by military authorities for his possible role in torture says he told a military physician about his suspicions, Miles presents this as historical fact. Failure to find documentation that the military physician named by the medic was investigated is then taken by Miles as evidence of a cover-up. As I wrote in my review, if true, these allegations are very serious, but I want better evidence before concluding that physicians violated their oaths. Third, the distinction between allied health personnel and military physicians is important. Only military physicians have taken the Hippocratic Oath; medics and psychologists have not. The thesis of the book, as suggested by its title, is the accusation that military physicians have betrayed the oath, but the vast majority of Miles's allegations against health-care personnel concern actions by medics and psychologists.

I have spoken with several military physicians about torture and abuse of prisoners. They have received little ethical guidance or training for their roles in such situations. Perhaps I have unjustly held Miles accountable for not having written the book I wanted, but a book that helped military physicians negotiate these situations would have been a superb and sorely needed contribution to military medical ethics.