Reflections

Medicine’s reckoning with genocide and crimes against humanity

Published on January 27th, 2026

Rubin Minhas, Duha Shellah, Nick Maynard, Guy Goodwin-Gill, Iain Chalmers and Gene Feder

Source: Pixabay

In the current opinion piece, the authors argue that the medical and scientific community must confront its ethical responsibilities regarding genocide and crimes against humanity and ensure human rights accountability guides all collaborations in medicine and science. They contend that while legal and policy frameworks like the UN Genocide Convention exist, actual prevention and response have fallen short, and medicine should not remain neutral or silent in the face of atrocities. The piece challenges researchers and medical leaders to avoid complicity in genocide and crimes against humanity. The piece was originally published in the BMJ. The original publication can be accessed at this link: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41167643/

From Darfur to Tigray to Myanmar, attacks on healthcare have become a weapon of war. The destruction of hospitals and killing of healthcare workers in Gaza has been an integral part of what a United Nations (UN) inquiry has deemed to be genocide in Gaza.1-2

Genocide, together with the 11 crimes against humanity (including torture, rape, forcible transfer, persecution, and apartheid) and war crimes, are collectively known as atrocity crimes.3 The prohibition of genocide is an absolute rule (jus cogens) of international law—so fundamental that no government can ignore or override it. Every state is bound to prevent, stop, and punish those responsible. Early warnings often come from civil society and journalists, then non-governmental organisations such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International.4-5 Formal early warning systems can predict atrocities up to a year before mass killing begins.6

Atrocities are recurrent, exposing a systemic failure of prevention. As in public health, the precautionary principle demands action amid uncertainty. For medicine, that means disengaging from institutions implicated in genocide—refusing collaborations that sustain impunity. Acting early is both a humanitarian and professional duty—the antidote to paralysis as the world grows desensitised to violence.7

History shows that what medicine once defended as neutrality under slavery, apartheid, and Nazism was later condemned as complicity. The same tension now faces academia. Responses to Israeli human rights abuses in the Occupied Territories have been largely grassroots, coalescing through professional networks and campaign alliances. In 2015, more than 300 UK academics pledged non-cooperation under the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel,8-9 yet a decade later no UK university has severed ties. Partnerships such as the Britain-Israel Research and Academic Exchange Partnership link UK universities and medical charities10-11 to Israeli institutions with reported involvement in defence related research, including drones and missile technology.12-14

After Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, UK Research and Innovation suspended grants and universities severed partnerships—treating boycott as a moral imperative.15 Such double standards expose the absence of guiding principles and risk complicity with governments and institutions either failing to prevent, or actively engaged in, atrocities. What is needed is a transparent process for justifying ethical disengagement when the risk of atrocity arises—balancing preventive action with important values such as academic freedom and scientific universalism.

Atrocity makes universality impossible by destroying the equal moral position on which it depends. The philosopher John Rawls captured this ideal through his veil of ignorance: decisions are fair only when made as if one could be anyone, ensuring that every life holds equal worth.16 Genocide and crimes against humanity negate that premise, deciding in advance whose lives do not count. In such conditions, neutrality must be active—maintaining equal moral distance to uphold the rights of all peoples. When medicine or academia continue collaboration instead, academic freedom becomes privilege, scientific universalism becomes partiality, and silence becomes complicity.

Concerns that individual clinicians might be disadvantaged by academic disengagement are misplaced; existing guidance17 and scholar-at-risk schemes18 protect individuals while suspending ties with institutions formally implicated in atrocity. Disengagement from institutions implicated in genocide remains the only means of restoring moral equipoise.

Disengagement interventions like sanctions and consumer boycotts can wield both economic and moral force; their power lies in moving markets and conscience.19-22 But in health and academia, the purpose is ethical disengagement to avoid complicity. The Nestlé boycott,23 the rejection of tobacco sponsorship,24 and academic boycotts of Israeli institutions by the Middle East Studies Association25 and the American Anthropological Association26 share that intent: refusal to collude with harm.

Ethical double standards corrode our principles: the Modern Slavery Act demands corporate transparency,27 yet no duty requires scrutiny of collaborations with institutions implicated in atrocity. Medicine already follows non-statutory standards—ethics committees, conflict of interest declarations, and frameworks such as CONSORT and PRISMA—that carry moral force without legal mandate. Aligning medical ethics with jus cogens norms would close the gap between legality and morality, holding medicine to the same universal standards that govern humanity. One question, examining the human cost, should guide us: does a collaboration risk complicity in genocide or crimes against humanity?

Ethical engagement should begin with human rights statements that disclose links to institutions or states implicated in atrocity across all research, grants, ethics reviews, and publications. Institutions can embed such due diligence—as Erasmus University has done by reviewing partners, their military ties, and human rights records—so accountability crosses borders.17 Real time field reports from non-governmental organisations offer more practical evidence for prevention than probabilistic early warning models28 or retrospective rulings by the International Court of Justice.

Clear signals should guide judgment: gravity—the scale of the crimes; necessity—when disengagement is among the few levers left; effectiveness—whether disengagement shifts incentives or reduces harm; universality—whether inconsistent responses imply some lives count for less; and entanglement—when collaboration creates moral or material ties or offers reputational cover.

Nearly eight decades after the Genocide Convention in 1948,29 prevention has advanced in principle but faltered in practice. Many states remain indifferent, but medicine must not.30 Beginning with genocide, medical and academic leaders have a duty to implement reforms to safeguard the line between valuable collaboration and toxic complicity, break institutional silence, and declare medicine’s commitment to the right to existence and life for all peoples, in all states.

Footnotes
  1. International Court of Justice. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (South Africa v Israel). Provisional measures, order of 26 January 2024. ICJ Reports. 2024.
  2. United Nations Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Israel has committed genocide in the Gaza Strip, UN Commission of Inquiry finds. 16 September 2025. https://www.un.org/unispal/document/israel-has-committed-genocide-in-the-gaza-strip-un-commission-finds-16sep25/
  3. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Adopted 17 July 1998, entered into force 1 July 2002. United Nations Treaty Series, volume 2187, page 3. https://www.icc-cpi.int/resource-library/documents/rs-eng.pdf
  4. Human Rights Watch. Sudan: One year of atrocities requires new global approach. 2024. https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/04/13/sudan-one-year-atrocities-requires-new-global-approach
  5. Amnesty International. “We will erase you from this land”: Crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing in Ethiopia’s Western Tigray Zone. 2022. https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/afr25/5444/2022/en/
  6. Rød EG, Gåsste T, Hegre H. A review and comparison of conflict early warning systems. Int J Forecast2024;40:96-112doi:10.1016/j.ijforecast.2023.01.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Slovic P. “If I look at the mass I will never act”: Psychic numbing and genocide. Judgm Decis Mak2007;2:79-95doi:10.1017/S1930297500000061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel. Guidelines for the International Academic Boycott of Israel.PACBI, 2014. https://bdsmovement.net/pacbi.Google Scholar
  9. The Guardian. UK academics boycott universities in Israel to fight for Palestinians’ rights. 2015. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/27/uk-academics-boycott-universities-in-israel-to-fight-for-palestinians-rights
  10. British Council. BIRAX: The UK-Israel Research and Academic Exchange. 2023. https://www.britishcouncil.org.il/en/birax/partners
  11. British Council. BIRAX: Ageing research projects. 2023. https://www.britishcouncil.org.il/en/birax/projects/ageing
  12. Matthews D. Amid Gaza war, debate intensifies: Is it wrong to collaborate with Israeli universities? Science|Business 2024. https://sciencebusiness.net/news/international-news/amid-gaza-war-debate-intensifies-it-wrong-collaborate-israeli-universities
  13. Advanced Defense Research Institute (ADRI). 2025. https://adri.technion.ac.il/Google Scholar
  14. Wind M. Towers of Ivory and Steel: How Israeli Universities Deny Palestinian Freedom.Verso Books, 2024.Google Scholar
  15. Grove J. UKRI suspends funding for Russia-linked projects. Times Higher Education. 2022. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/ukri-suspends-funding-russia-linked-projects
  16. Rawls J. Political Liberalism.Columbia University Press, 1993.Google Scholar
  17. Advisory Committee on Sensitive Collaborations. Advice on the collaborations with Israeli Universities (Version 1.0). Rotterdam: Erasmus University; 2025. https://www.eur.nl/media/2025-05-20250526-advice-collaborations-israeli-universities-publication
  18. Scholars at Risk Network. About Scholars at Risk. New York: Scholars at Risk; 2025. https://www.scholarsatrisk.org/about/
  19. Feldman N. In the Shadow of Delegitimization: Israel’s Sensitivity to Economic Sanctions.Institute for National Security Studies, 2017. https://css.ethz.ch/content/dam/ethz/special-interest/gess/cis/center-for-securities-studies/resources/docs/INSS-In%20the%20Shadow%20of%20Delegitimization,%20Israel’s%20Sensitivity%20to%20Economic%20Sanctions.pdf.Google Scholar
  20. Levy PI. Sanctions on South Africa: What Did They Do? Yale Economic Growth Center Discussion Paper No. 796.Yale University, 1999. https://ideas.repec.org/p/egc/wpaper/796.html.Google Scholar
  21. Gutmann J, Neuenkirch M, Neumeier F. The economic effects of international sanctions: An event study. J Comp Econ2023;51:1214-31. doi:10.1016/j.jce.2023.05.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Morgan TC, Syropoulos C, Yotov YV. Economic Sanctions: Evolution, Consequences, and Challenges. J Econ Perspect2023;37:3-30. doi:10.1257/jep.37.1.3.
  23. Post JE. Assessing the Nestlé boycott: corporate accountability and human rights. Calif Manage Rev1985;27:113-31doi:10.2307/41165133.
  24. Godlee F, Malone R, Timmis A, et al. Journal policy on research funded by the tobacco industry. Thorax2013;68:1090-1. doi:10.1136/thoraxjnl-2013-204531 pmid:24130154FREE Full TextGoogle Scholar
  25. Middle East Studies Association. MESA members vote to endorse call for academic boycott of Israeli institutions. 2022. https://mesana.org/news/2022/03/23/middle-east-scholars-vote-to-endorse-bds
  26. American Anthropological Association. AAA membership endorses resolution to boycott Israeli academic institutions. 2023. https://americananthro.org/news/aaa-membership-endorses-academic-boycott-resolution/
  27. Modern Slavery Act. 2015, c 30 (UK). https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/30/contents/enactedGoogle Scholar
  28. McLoughlin S, Gifkins J, Bellamy AJ. The evolution of mass atrocity early warning in the UN Secretariat: fit for purpose?International Peacekeeping2023;30:477-505. doi:10.1080/13533312.2023.2236929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. United Nations. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. 1948. https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.1_Convention%20on%20the%20Prevention%20and%20Punishment%20of%20the%20Crime%20of%20Genocide.pdf
  30. Abbasi K. Where genocide, healthocide, and atrocities start, medical neutrality ends. BMJ2025;391:r2120. doi:10.1136/bmj.r2120.FREE Full TextGoogle Scholar
Author Affiliations

Rubin Minhas, Managing Partner, Oakfield Health Centre, Gravesend, UK

Duha Shellah, Chair, Public Health in Emergencies and Disasters Working Group, World Federation of Public Health Associations (WFPHA), State of Palestine

Nick Maynard, Professor of Surgery, Oxford University Hospitals, Oxford, UK

Guy Goodwin-Gill, Emeritus Professor of International Refugee Law, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

Iain Chalmers, Cofounder, Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK

Gene Feder, Professor of Primary Health Care, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK

Disclaimer: IDVRM aims to serve as a platform that researchers internationally, especially in the non-western world, can use to disseminate their research. We do our best to ensure that authors who publish with us have conducted their research following the highest ethical standards, with decolonial reflexivity and principles of least harm to participants in mind. We do not require authors to submit ethical documentation, but we ask our authors to provide sufficient information about ethical procedures in their submissions. It is beyond the capacity of IDVRM to verify this information. Authors should be reached directly to respond to questions regarding their research.

Opinions expressed by authors contributing to our blog are those solely of the authors and do not necessarily represent the position of IDVRM, its Director or other team members. IDVRM is comprised of diverse individuals who are encouraged to share their experiences and opinions openly with recognition that other team members may have different experiences and positions. IDVRM does not claim to represent any one community and we understand that belonging to a specific group does not entitle any one of us to speak for all.

AI Use: IDVRM may use AI tools for editing and proofreading purposes to improve language, syntax and grammar. Essays must be the original work of the author.