What proper role should considerations of risk, particularly to research subjects, play when it comes to conducting research on human enhancement in the military context? We introduce the currently visible military enhancement techniques (1) and the standard discussion of risk for these (2), in particular what we refer to as the ‘Assumption’, which states that the demands for risk-avoidance are higher for enhancement than for therapy. We challenge the Assumption through the introduction of three categories of enhancements (3): therapeutic, preventive, (...) and pure enhancements. This demands a revision of the Assumption (4), alongside which we propose some further general principles bearing on how to balance risks and benefits in the context of military enhancement research. We identify a particular type of therapeutic enhancements as providing a more responsible path to human trials of the relevant interventions than pure enhancement applications. Finally, we discuss some possible objections to our line of thought (5). While acknowledging their potential insights, we ultimately find them to be unpersuasive, at least provided that our proposal is understood as fully non-coercive towards the candidates for such therapeutic enhancement trials. (shrink)

Are field medics morally permitted to treat unjust combatants? I distinguish between two kinds of enemy combatants: reactivated ones who will rejoin the fight, and deactivated ones who will not rejoin the fight. Helen Frowe has argued that field medics are not permitted to treat reactivated combatants but is silent about deactivated ones. First, I argue that Frowe’s account plausibly extends to a moral prohibition on treating deactivated combatants in addition to reactivated ones. Second, I argue that the best argument (...) for treating deactivated enemy soldiers extends also to reactivated ones but holds only for groups, which undermines Frowe’s general position. I thus defend the mainstream view, enshrined in the Geneva Convention, that the treatment of deactivated unjust combatants (and maybe, in some cases, reactivated unjust combatants) by partisan or nonpartisan field medics is often all-things-considered morally obligatory. -/- . (shrink)

In response to Michael Gross (2008), this article explores the supposition that the goals of military medicine either are or should be characterized as returning wounded soldiers to duty and issues some comments on the negative part of Gross’s project (i.e., why military medicine does not have special obligations to soldiers who will not return to the battlefield).

This book sheds light on various ethical challenges military and humanitarian health care personnel face while working in adverse conditions. Contexts of armed conflict, hybrid wars or other forms of violence short of war, as well as natural disasters, all have in common that ordinary circumstances can no longer be taken for granted. Hence, the provision of health care has to adapt, for example, to a different level of risk, to scarce resources, or uncommon approaches due to external incentives or (...) requirements. This affects the practice of health care as well as its ethics. This book offers a panoramic overview on various challenges healthcare faces in extraordinary situations and provides new insights from practitioners’ as well as from academic scholars’ perspectives. (shrink)

Background “Crisis military deployment” was defined as a situation in which military personnel are suddenly ordered to duty to support an operation away from their home station and in a potentially dangerous environment. As a result of complex changes in the global political and economic landscape, military nurses are assuming an increasing number of crisis military deployment tasks. Moral distress has been widely studied among civilian nurses. However, little is known about the moral distress military nurses experience during military deployments (...) in crisis. Aim This review discussed the current state of research on the phenomenon, unique factors, specific sources, and measurement tools. Methods The scope of the study was defined using a framework developed by Arksey and O’Malley. Following English databases were searched: PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Embase, using MeSH terms and free word combinations; furthermore, Chinese databases: CNKI and CBMDisc, were explored using thematic terms from inception until January 20, 2023. Data were selected and defined by the inclusion and exclusion criteria and independently screened by two researchers. Ethical considerations The scoping review adhered to sound scientific practice and respected authorship and reference sources. Results Finally, 21 articles were included in the review. The moral distress of military nurses in crisis military deployments had unique and specific sources and reported positive aspects. The deployment environment and nature of the mission, responsibilities and obligations of military nurses, and the limited rights of patients were unique factors. Specific sources included third-party intervention, military triage, resource allocation, futile care, care of the enemy, and return to the battlefield. Military nurses in deployment reported positive aspects. They grow in their inner strength, build deep friendships and gain a greater sense of professional value. Conclusion It is important to understand the unique factors and specific sources of moral distress faced by military nurses in crisis military deployments and to identify the positive aspects. This research will help prepare military nurses for future deployments in advance by providing useful information to mitigate and eliminate moral distress. (shrink)

A soldier who suffers a debilitating casualty on the battlefield is a wounded warrior. Awaiting that individual is a complex safety net, composed of public and private assistance. Should this same...

Using an interpretative research approach to ethical and legal literature, it is argued that nursing in the battlefield is distinctly different to civilian nursing, even in an emergency, and that the environment is so different that a duty of care owed by military nurses to wounded soldiers should not apply. Such distinct differences in wartime can override normal peacetime professional ethics to the extent that the duty of care owed by military nurses to their patients on the battlefield should not (...) exist. It is also argued that as military nurses have legal and professional obligations to care for wounded soldiers on the battlefield, this obligation conflicts with following military orders, causing a dual loyalty conflict. This is because soldiers are part of the ‘fighting force’ and must be fit to fight and win the battle. This makes them more of a commodity rather than individual persons with distinct health care needs. (shrink)

The prioritisation of scarce resources has a particular urgency within the context of the COVID‐19 pandemic crisis. This paper sets out a hypothetical case of Patient X (who is a nurse) and Patient Y (who is a non‐health care worker). They are both in need of a ventilator due to COVID‐19 with the same clinical situation and expected outcomes. However, there is only one ventilator available. In addressing the question of who should get priority, the proposal is made that the (...) answer may lie in how the pandemic is metaphorically described using military terms. If nursing is understood to take place at the ‘frontline’ in the ‘battle’ against COVID‐19, a principle of military medical ethics—namely the principle of salvage—can offer guidance on how to prioritise access to a life‐saving resource in such a situation. This principle of salvage purports a moral direction to return wounded soldiers back to duty on the battlefield. Applying this principle to the hypothetical case, this paper proposes that Patient X (who is a nurse) should get priority of access to the ventilator so that he/she can return to the ‘frontline’ in the fight against COVID‐19. (shrink)