Introduction

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Michael L. Gross
Keyword(s):  
Medical Ethics ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Military Medicine ◽  
Abu Ghraib ◽  
Medical Experimentation ◽  
Guantanamo Bay ◽  
Force Feeding ◽  
Military Medical Ethics

“Can military medicine be ethical?” is one question that may puzzle readers whose knowledge of medical ethics since 9/11 is colored by the prisons of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. To address these and other challenges, Military Medical Ethics in Contemporary Armed Conflict explores controversial topics that include preferential care for compatriot warfighters, force feeding detainees, weaponizing medicine to wage war, medical experimentation, and neural enhancement for warfighters. Less controversial but no less compelling concerns direct our attention to postwar justice: the duty to rebuild war-torn nations and the obligation to care for war-torn veterans.

Conclusion

2021 ◽  
pp. 275-282
Author(s):  
Michael L. Gross
Keyword(s):  
Medical Ethics ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Just War ◽  
Military Medicine ◽  
Novel Weapons ◽  
Nation States ◽  
The Future ◽  
Ethics Of War ◽  
Military Medical Ethics

Rounding out Military Medical Ethics in Contemporary Armed Conflict, the conclusion first highlights the signposts that lead the reader to understand how the ethics of war is inseparable from the ethics of military medicine. Military medicine must serve just war. Historically, just wars are defensive or humanitarian. But things may change. So next, we look to the future. Past wars do not necessarily predict coming conflicts. Future wars will see novel weapons and new adversaries drawing from nation-states, nonstates, criminals, and unknown assailants. Nevertheless, the experience of recent wars, particularly those in Iraq and Afghanistan, offers important lessons to guide military medicine as war evolves into ways we can anticipate and in ways we cannot.

Military Medical Ethics in Contemporary Armed Conflict

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael L. Gross
Keyword(s):  
Medical Ethics ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Just War ◽  
Military Medicine ◽  
Moral Dilemmas ◽  
Medical Attention ◽  
Ethical Challenges ◽  
Moral Foundation ◽  
Manage Health Care ◽  
Military Medical Ethics

Beleaguered countries struggling against aggression or powerful nations defending others from brutal regimes mobilize medicine to wage just war. As states funnel medical resources to maintain unit readiness and conserve military capabilities, numerous ethical challenges foreign to peacetime medicine ensue. Force conservation drives combat hospitals to prioritize warfighter care over all others. Civilians find themselves bereft of medical attention; prison officials force feed hunger-striking detainees; policymakers manage health care to win the hearts and minds of local nationals; and scientists develop neuro-technologies or nanosurgery to create super soldiers. When the fighting ends, intractable moral dilemmas rebound. Postwar justice demands enormous investments of time, resources, and personnel. But losing interest and no longer zealous, war-weary nations forget their duties to rebuild ravaged countries abroad and rehabilitate their war-torn veterans at home. Addressing these incendiary issues, Military Medical Ethics in Contemporary Armed Conflict integrates the ethics of medicine and the ethics of war. Medical ethics in times of war is not identical to medical ethics in times of peace but a unique discipline. Without war, there is no military medicine, and without just war, there is no military medical ethics. Military Medical Ethics in Contemporary Armed Conflict revises, defends, and rebuts wartime medical practices, just as it lays the moral foundation for casualty care in future conflicts.

scholarly journals US military medical ethics in the War on Terror

2019 ◽  
Vol 165 (4) ◽  
pp. 303-306 ◽  
Author(s):  
George J Annas ◽  
S Crosby
Keyword(s):  
Medical Ethics ◽  
War On Terror ◽  
Code Of Ethics ◽  
Medical Professionals ◽  
Ethical Guidelines ◽  
Guantanamo Bay ◽  
Us Military ◽  
Military Medical Ethics ◽  
Prison Camp ◽  
Military Physicians

Military medical ethics has been challenged by the post-11 September 2001 ‘War on Terror’. Two recurrent questions are whether military physicians are officers first or physicians first, and whether military physicians need a separate code of ethics. In this article, we focus on how the War on Terror has affected the way we have addressed these questions since 2001. Two examples frame this discussion: the use of military physicians to force-feed hunger strikers held in Guantanamo Bay prison camp, and the uncertain fate of the Department of Defense’s report on ‘Ethical Guidelines and Practices for US Military Medical Professionals’.

scholarly journals Dilemmas in Military Medical Ethics: A Call for Conceptual Clarity

2016 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christiane Rochon
Keyword(s):  
Medical Ethics ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Military Medicine ◽  
Codes Of Ethics ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
Conceptual Clarity ◽  
Ethical Conflicts ◽  
Military Medical Ethics ◽  
The Military ◽  
Military Physicians

Despite the increase in and evolving nature of armed conflicts, the ethical issues faced by military physicians working in such contexts are still rarely examined in the bioethics literature. Military physicians are members of the military, even if they are non-combatants; and their role is one of healer but also sometimes humanitarian. Some scholars wonder about the moral compatibility of being both a physician and soldier. The ethical conflicts raised in the literature regarding military physicians can be organized into three main perspectives: 1) moral problems in military medicine are particular because of the difficulty of meeting the requirements of traditional bioethical principles; 2) medical codes of ethics and international laws are not well adapted to or are too restrictive for a military context; and 3) physicians are social actors who should either be pacifists, defenders of human rights, politically neutral or promoters of peace. A review of the diverse dilemmas faced by military physicians shows that these differ substantially by level (micro, meso, macro), context and the actors involved, and that they go beyond issues of patient interests. Like medicine in general, military medicine is complex and touches on potentially contested views of the roles and obligations of the physician. Greater conceptual clarity is thus needed in discussions about military medical ethics.

Military Medical Ethics and Just War

2021 ◽  
pp. 13-34
Author(s):  
Michael L. Gross
Keyword(s):  
Medical Ethics ◽  
Medical Care ◽  
Military Medicine ◽  
Political Community ◽  
Medical Necessity ◽  
Medical Needs ◽  
Private Interests ◽  
Human Rights Abuse ◽  
Underlying Principle ◽  
Military Medical Ethics

The goal of military medicine is to conserve the fighting force necessary to prosecute just wars. Just wars are defensive or humanitarian. A defensive war protects one’s people or nation. A humanitarian war rescues a foreign, persecuted people or nation from grave human rights abuse. To provide medical care during armed conflict, military medical ethics supplements civilian medical ethics with two principles: military-medical necessity and broad beneficence. Military-medical necessity designates the medical means required to pursue national self-defense or humanitarian intervention. While clinical-medical necessity directs care to satisfy urgent medical needs, military-medical necessity utilizes medical care to satisfy the just aims of war. Military medicine may, therefore, attend the lightly wounded before the critically wounded or use medical care to win hearts and minds. The underlying principle is broad, not narrow, beneficence. The latter addresses private interests, while broad beneficence responds to the collective welfare of the political community.

Medical Ethics at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib: The Problem of Dual Loyalty

2006 ◽  
Vol 34 (3) ◽  
pp. 570-580 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter A. Clark
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Medical Ethics ◽  
Medical Records ◽  
Medical Information ◽  
Medical Personnel ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Committee ◽  
Abu Ghraib ◽  
Military Health ◽  
Guantanamo Bay

Although knowledge of torture and physical and psychological abuse was widespread at both the Guantanamo Bay detention facility and Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, and known to medical personnel, there was no official report before the January 2004 Army investigation of military health personnel reporting abuse, degradation, or signs of torture. Mounting information from many sources, including Pentagon documents, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, etc., indicate that medical personnel failed to maintain medical records, conduct routine medical examinations, provide proper care of disabled and injured detainees, accurately report illnesses and injuries, and falsified medical records and death certificates. Medical personnel and medical information was also used to design and implement psychologically and physically coercive interrogations. The United States military medical system failed to protect detainee's human rights, violated the basic principles of medical ethics and ignored the basic tenets of medical professionalism.

scholarly journals Hunger strike and the force-feeding chair: Guantanamo Bay and corporeal surrender

2018 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 294-312 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yasmin Ibrahim ◽  
Anita Howarth
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
The Body ◽  
American Empire ◽  
Hunger Strike ◽  
Full Disclosure ◽  
Guantanamo Bay ◽  
Force Feeding ◽  
Living Dead ◽  
A Site ◽  
Corporeal Body

Through the biotechnology of the force-feeding chair and the hunger strike in Guantanamo, this paper examines the camp as a site of necropolitics where bodies inhabit the space of the Muselmann – a figure Agamben invokes in Auschwitz to capture the predicament of the living dead. Sites of incarceration produce an aesthetic of torture and the force-feeding chair embodies the disciplining of the body and the extraction of pain while imposing the biopolitics of the American empire on “terrorist bodies”. Not worthy of human rights or death, the force-fed body inhabits a realm of indistinction between animal and human. The camp as an interstitial space which is beyond closure as well as full disclosure produces an aesthetic of torture on the racialised Other through the force-feeding chair positioned between visibility and non-visibility. Through the discourse of medical ethics and the legal struggle for rights, the force-feeding chair emerges as a symbol of necropolitics where the hunger strike becomes a mechanism to impede death while possessing and violating the corporeal body.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document