Citation

Gross ML. Am. J. Bioeth. 2017; 17(10): 40-52.

Affiliation

a University of Haifa.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2017, MIT Press)

DOI

10.1080/15265161.2017.1365186

PMID

29020561

Abstract

Medical rules of eligibility permit severely injured Iraqi and Afghan nationals to receive care in Coalition medical facilities only if bed space is available and their injuries result directly from Coalition fire. The first rule favors Coalition soldiers over host-nation nationals and contradicts the principle of impartial, needs-based medical care. To justify preferential care for compatriots, wartime medicine invokes associative obligations of care that favor friends, family, and comrades-in-arms. Associative obligations have little place in peacetime medical care but significantly affect wartime medicine. The second rule suggests liability for collateral harm that is unsupported by international law and military ethics. Absent liability, there are pragmatic reasons to offer medical care to injured local civilians if it quells resentment and cements support for Coalition forces. In contrast to peacetime medicine, military necessity and associative obligations outweigh distributive principles based on medical need during war.

Language: en

Keywords

law; moral theory; philosophy; rationing/resource allocation; right to health care