Abstract

During asymmetric war, state armies must care for their local allies, detainees and the civilian population in two contexts: acute care for those wounded during military operations and medical care for the general population as required by the Geneva Conventions. Constrained by scarce resources, state armies face a number of moral dilemmas that affect care on the ground.Triage. As they deploy, state armies allocate in-theater medical resources to care for their soldiers. In-theater care does not provide for long-term treatment. Its purpose is to return warfighters to active duty or to quickly evacuate them to the US or Europe for comprehensive medical care. Limited beds and personnel make it impossible to provide the local population with the level of care that Western soldiers receive. As a result, the US and other armies develop complex and often arbitrary rules to treat civilians. The inability to provide high-level care to all, creates tensions with local civilians and host country allies.Ensuring local medical care. The Geneva Conventions require occupying armies to “ensure the medical needs of the civilian population.” Specifying these needs is a medical and moral challenge. What level satisfies this requirement? How much aid should the occupying power provide? How best to distribute existing resources? How should state armies protect NGOs that provide significant medical care and often find themselves under attack by insurgents?Medical Diplomacy. While the purpose of medical care is to treat the sick and injured, medical care also serves security needs. Medical care is a long-established tool to win the hearts and minds of the local population. Since the Vietnam War, however, critics have charged that medical diplomacy subverts the purpose of medicine, places medical personnel in the service of war and provides poor medical care.