Haphazard throughout much of history, sound wartime medical care, and with it, military medical ethics is a recent phenomenon. The Geneva Conventions first introduced the term medical ethics into the laws governing armed conflict in 1977:

Persons engaged in medical activities shall not be compelled to perform acts or to carry out work contrary to the rules of medical ethics or to other medical rules designed for the benefit of the wounded and sick. (Additional Protocol I 1977a: Art 16 (2)).

“What is the essential maxim of these principles [of medical ethics]?” ask the commentators to Additional Protocol I. The answer is terse:

“It is never to act in conflict with the wounded person's interests, to help him to the fullest extent of the means available, whoever he is (principle of non-discrimination), to be discreet regarding his condition and never to abuse his sense of dependence on the person administering care, particularly not with a view to gaining an advantage from him (§658).

There is nothing in this maxim or international law more generally to suggest that war appreciably alters the principles of medical ethics. The World Medical Association (WMA) follows suit. Emphasizing respect for dignity, confidentiality, impartial care, and the duty to treat any sick or injured person solely according to medical need, the WMA (2017) declares: “medical ethics in times of armed conflict is identical to medical ethics in times of peace.”

The practice of military medicine, however, puts paid to such a hasty conclusion...

Points of Discussion

• Thinking about Military Medical Ethics
• War, Just War, and Military Medical Ethics
• Jus in Bello: The Rules of Just War (Just 2!)
• Medical Care for Combatants and Noncombatants
• Broad Beneficence & Military-Medical Necessity (not what you think!)