Medics

kevinhalvey

this is just my curiosity kicking in but are medics armed in combat . im not talking about the medics in b.c by the way

and

can medics be engaged by enemy personnel ?

Steyr

Chapter IV, Article 25 of the Geneva Convention states that "Members of the armed forces specially trained for employment, should the need arise, as hospital orderlies, nurses or auxiliary stretcher-bearers, in the search for or the collection, transport or treatment of the wounded and sick shall likewise be respected and protected if they are carrying out these duties at the time when they come into contact with the enemy or fall into his hands." Article 29 reads "Members of the personnel designated in Article 25 who have fallen into the hands of the enemy, shall be prisoners of war, but shall be employed on their medical duties insofar as the need arises."


According to the Geneva Convention, knowingly firing at a medic wearing clear insignia is a war crime.

In modern times, most combat medics carry a personal weapon, to be used to protect themselves and the wounded or sick in their care. When and if they use their arms offensively, or carry arms that qualify as offensive, they then sacrifice their protection under the Geneva Conventions.



Source Wiki.

Zambia

Does anyone think this is a factor these days.

The geneva convention that is. Mate of mine was a medic in Timor and he carried. I dont think he wore any markings either.

I would also imagine most troopers are well trined in basic battlefield dressing?

Cryos

Its a valid question, as has already been stated there is conventions in place that medics aren't armed therefore shouldn't be engaged in combat..

But in the same breath i wouldn't be walking down a road in Afghanistan in uniform without a weapon. To a large degree in Military Vs. Military wars (i.e nations against nations) i think youll see it observed vigorously (no practical experience here), i would imagine that the rules are not observed if engaging the likes of the Taliban etc..

Like having a Sincgar at your side, the medical symbols do attract attention

Manic Moran

as has already been stated there is conventions in place that medics aren't armed therefore shouldn't be engaged in combat..

Erm, no, it hasn't already been so stated, as there are no such conventions in place. Medics are routinely armed.

NTM

discus

The BA use the term Combat Medic Technician to describe the medic role, and they're armed with rifles.

BigDuffman

Why have an un-armed man in uniform in a combat zone? When an armed one can operate as both a soldier and medic.

Modern warfare tends to be against radical elements who do not exactly conform to the geneva convention. An enemy willing to behead civilians and indiscriminately kill with IEDs will not respect the roll of a uniformed man wearing a small white and red patch. Potentially in a war between to "civilized" nations this may be observed.

Donny5

BigDuffman wrote: »

Why have an un-armed man in uniform in a combat zone? When an armed one can operate as both a soldier and medic.

Modern warfare tends to be against radical elements who do not exactly conform to the geneva convention. An enemy willing to behead civilians and indiscriminately kill with IEDs will not respect the roll of a uniformed man wearing a small white and red patch. Potentially in a war between to "civilized" nations this may be observed.

If a medic engages in hostile action, he would lose his Geneva protections. Arms are allowable for defense only.

ChunkyLover_53

Donny5 wrote: »

If a medic engages in hostile action, he would lose his Geneva protections. Arms are allowable for defense only.

I can't see the Taliban having the latest draft of the Geneva Convention lying around the cave TBH

xflyer

In WW2 medics were marked as such and generally were not singled out particularly in western Europe. However that was not true of the Eastern front and the Pacific. Where medics were fair game. German medics were often armed with pistols. This led to a situation where allied troops shot them out of hand.

Modern medics are armed as already pointed out. They have to be, the kind of enemies fought these days have little respect for the rules of war or the Geneva convention.

OS119

Donny5 wrote: »

If a medic engages in hostile action, he would lose his Geneva protections. Arms are allowable for defense only.

its dark, your platoon in engaged in a firefight with two enemy positions, stregnth unknown, you're cut off from your line of retreat, 6 blokes out of 30 have injuries ranging from bloody painful to almost dead, you're designated artillery support appears to be offline and you're pretty sure that if you get captured your hosts are going to set light to you and then behead you live on the internet.

define 'offensive' and 'defensive'.

you have 2 seconds.

Donny5

OS119 wrote: »

its dark, your platoon in engaged in a firefight with two enemy positions, stregnth unknown, you're cut off from your line of retreat, 6 blokes out of 30 have injuries ranging from bloody painful to almost dead, you're designated artillery support appears to be offline and you're pretty sure that if you get captured your hosts are going to set light to you and then behead you live on the internet.

define 'offensive' and 'defensive'.

you have 2 seconds.

If you embed medics in platoons with near identical dress, equipment and armament, even with insignia, you would have a hard time arguing that any enemy would be deliberately targeting medical personnel in engaging them. They have as good as no Geneva protections.

Donny5

ChunkyLover_53 wrote: »

I can't see the Taliban having the latest draft of the Geneva Convention lying around the cave TBH

No, and they're not signatories, so it's a moot point. Basically, I would think that I could successfully argue that medics embedded in small units in the current COIN wars can't have any expectation of Geneva protections, either practically or legally.

discus

Donny5 wrote: »

No, and they're not signatories, so it's a moot point. Basically, I would think that I could successfully argue that medics embedded in small units in the current COIN wars can't have any expectation of Geneva protections, either practically or legally.

I can't see what you're debating. I don't know if you're arguing for/against arms, or pro/anti GC

BigDuffman

Donny5 wrote: »

If a medic engages in hostile action, he would lose his Geneva protections. Arms are allowable for defense only.

CSAR medics the likes of which are currently being used int Afghan and Iraq. Are essentially SF trained paramedics. Armed but with priority of providing medical cover.

Geneva protections can be argued in courtrooms by lawyers and discussed academically. Reality however does not usually translate.

Donny5

discus wrote: »

I can't see what you're debating. I don't know if you're arguing for/against arms, or pro/anti GC

Neither, really. Just saying that the way modern medics are used in current wars doesn't lend itself to Geneva protections, and the enemy doesn't bother with them either, so there's no need to worry about what restrictions the Convention places on medics.