Australian Doctors Face Jail for Protecting Asylum Seekers

Author: BMJ
Published: 2016/02/20 - Updated: 2026/01/01
Publication Type: News
Category Topic: Australian - Related Publications

Page Content: Synopsis - Introduction - Main - Insights, Updates

Synopsis: This report presents a medical ethics crisis in Australia where physicians treating asylum seekers face up to two years imprisonment under the 2015 Border Force Act for following their professional obligation to put patient welfare first. The article, published in The BMJ and authored by Dr. David Berger of Doctors4Refugees, examines the case of Brisbane pediatricians who refused to discharge a burned infant back to a detention camp on Nauru island, placing these doctors in direct conflict between their 2,500-year-old Hippocratic duty and federal law. This information is particularly relevant to healthcare professionals, disability advocates, and anyone concerned with vulnerable populations, as it documents how legal constraints can force medical practitioners to choose between their ethical responsibilities and criminal prosecution when treating patients who depend entirely on their professional judgment for safety and appropriate care - Disabled World (DW).

Introduction

In The BMJ a doctor is calling on the Australian government to stop constraining doctors in the care of asylum seekers and refugees, and to adopt a humane stance to people seeking asylum.

David Berger, a doctor at Broome Hospital in Western Australia and a committee member of Doctors4Refugees, is making these calls following the high profile case at The Lady Cilento Hospital in Brisbane.

Main Content

Pediatricians are refusing to discharge a baby facing deportation to a detention camp after the girl, a daughter of asylum seekers, suffered serious burns at an immigration camp on Nauru island. The Lady Cilento Hospital says the girl will not be released "until a suitable home environment is identified".

Dr Berger explains that despite seeking to ensure the safety of their patient and doing nothing more than following their own ethical code, these doctors risk facing up to two years imprisonment under the 2015 Border Force Act.

Doctors have an ethical code since the time of the Hippocratic physicians nearly 2,500 years ago, he explains, yet this new law "compels them to follow the instructions of the Australian government, even if they believe this might be to the detriment of their patients."

He says this case goes to the heart of the question of 'duty of the physician' versus 'law of the land', but argues that "compliance with the law can not inoculate the medical practitioner completely against the need to comply with their ethical code".

He highlights the 2012 Derek Keilloh case in the UK that shows the "impossible ethical and legal position doctors now face in Australia... as they are caught between the profession's ethical code, which places patient welfare at the heart of their endeavors, and the law of the country which places unacceptable obstacles in the way of doing so."

Dr Berger adds that the actions of the Brisbane doctors "are not simply a piece of political grandstanding, but the courageous stand of professionals seeking to do the right thing by their patient and to live up to the standards of an ethical code by which they are morally and legally bound and which places patient welfare at its pinnacle."

"They are behaving according to the very highest standards of their profession," he adds, and calls on the government to repeal the relevant provisions of the Border Force Act and to adopt a "humane stance" towards people seeking asylum.

Insights, Analysis, and Developments

Editorial Note: The tension between medical ethics and government policy revealed in this case raises fundamental questions about the limits of state authority over professional judgment in healthcare. When doctors must weigh the immediate safety of their patients against the threat of imprisonment, we've reached a point where the law itself becomes a barrier to healing. The Brisbane pediatricians' stand isn't an act of civil disobedience - it's the fulfillment of an oath that predates modern borders by millennia. Their refusal to discharge a burned infant to conditions they deemed unsafe demonstrates that some professional responsibilities cannot be legislated away, even when doing so carries personal risk. History has repeatedly shown that when governments criminalize the act of providing care, it's the law, not the doctors, that needs changing - Disabled World (DW).