Tweet
I wanted to post this article from The Journal of Medical Ethics to make a glaring point and remedy away this notion that somehow, outside powers can ever have, as Mr. Karzai puts it, interests that counter balance those of the Afghan nation. These are powerful evidence based quotes from medical professionals in the theater of war to show how Afghan National Army soldiers (not Taliban) and other hired locals are triaged in a direction that will award their sacrifices with less than optimal medical care. This is NOT circa 2001 but circa 2007.
The point of this is not to bring any criticism towards NATO or the US since any nation will put their own people and their own interests first... rather its to shift the onus to Karzai and the effeminate emigre elite in Kabul who actually think that they can convince the average Afghan that they are going to be the next Japan or Germany thanks to the largesse of outside donors. Rather, the goal is to show that no one can do for you what you cannot do for yourself - and one should not expect anyone else utilizing a military force in your land to treat you as co-equals or have your best interests in mind - ever- period.
http://medicalethicist.net/documents...hics%20BMJ.pdf
Title: The Medical Ethics of the Battle Field by Dr Daniel K Sokol:
to obtain high quality burn care. Such divergent treatment is
Now the kicker is how this approach is VALIDATED by the author by trying to somehow disingenously trying to construct a nonexistent ethical conundrum:
"If our Afghan patient is treated and survives to discharge, what
This is said as if they can predict how an Afghan family will react to their loved one's injuries and as if they can predict that Afghans will respond in a manner different than most human beings to the injuries sustained by their loved ones.
The point of this is not to bring any criticism towards NATO or the US since any nation will put their own people and their own interests first... rather its to shift the onus to Karzai and the effeminate emigre elite in Kabul who actually think that they can convince the average Afghan that they are going to be the next Japan or Germany thanks to the largesse of outside donors. Rather, the goal is to show that no one can do for you what you cannot do for yourself - and one should not expect anyone else utilizing a military force in your land to treat you as co-equals or have your best interests in mind - ever- period.
http://medicalethicist.net/documents...hics%20BMJ.pdf
Title: The Medical Ethics of the Battle Field by Dr Daniel K Sokol:
"In one scenario, a member of the local Afghan security forces
has suffered massive injuries from an improvised explosive
device. He has lost both his legs and both his forearms. The
blast has removed his entire face. Tourniquets are controlling
the bleeding from the legs. He is still alive. If he can be saved
by use of the coalition forces’ state of the art medical services,
what of his future once he is transferred to a local health centre,
whose facilities pale in comparison?
One Canadian paramedic working in Kandahar, Afghanistan,
in 2007 described the transfer of patients to the local hospital
as a “death sentence.”
has suffered massive injuries from an improvised explosive
device. He has lost both his legs and both his forearms. The
blast has removed his entire face. Tourniquets are controlling
the bleeding from the legs. He is still alive. If he can be saved
by use of the coalition forces’ state of the art medical services,
what of his future once he is transferred to a local health centre,
whose facilities pale in comparison?
One Canadian paramedic working in Kandahar, Afghanistan,
in 2007 described the transfer of patients to the local hospital
as a “death sentence.”
1 The hospital had no ventilators,
resuscitation equipment, laryngoscope, or monitoring devices.
Kevin Patterson, a Canadian doctor also posted to Afghanistan,
recalls a mass casualty incident involving a mixture of coalition
personnel and Afghans.2 The doctors were told not to intubate
any of the Afghans with burns exceeding 50%. Without a burns
unit, those patients would be doomed. The coalition patients,
on the other hand, could be repatriated to their home countries
resuscitation equipment, laryngoscope, or monitoring devices.
Kevin Patterson, a Canadian doctor also posted to Afghanistan,
recalls a mass casualty incident involving a mixture of coalition
personnel and Afghans.2 The doctors were told not to intubate
any of the Afghans with burns exceeding 50%. Without a burns
unit, those patients would be doomed. The coalition patients,
on the other hand, could be repatriated to their home countries
to obtain high quality burn care. Such divergent treatment is
hard to bear and highlights the need to develop local healthcare
infrastructure, but what are the immediate alternatives?"Now the kicker is how this approach is VALIDATED by the author by trying to somehow disingenously trying to construct a nonexistent ethical conundrum:
"If our Afghan patient is treated and survives to discharge, what
kind of life awaits him back in his village, where the realities
of survival and attitudes to profound disability may be a far cry
from our own?"of survival and attitudes to profound disability may be a far cry
This is said as if they can predict how an Afghan family will react to their loved one's injuries and as if they can predict that Afghans will respond in a manner different than most human beings to the injuries sustained by their loved ones.
Comment