70 years of the Geneva Conventions – Impact on Medical Personnel and Human Rights скачать в хорошем качестве

70 years of the Geneva Conventions – Impact on Medical Personnel and Human Rights

Roy Beran, MD, University of New South Wales; Griffith University; John Devereux, NSW Australia. Abstract: Background The modern Geneva Conventions were signed in 1949, though the laws of war date back as far as the Mahabharata and the Torah. The Geneva Conventions came into force in the shadows of the horror of two world wars, the use of chemical weapons, carpet bombing of civilian towns, mass extermination and medical experimentation on vulnerable groups. Times have changed. Wars are no longer fought on a global scale. Regional conflicts, non-international armed conflicts and peacekeeping missions dominate the landscape. Modern challenges include the use of human shields, the impact in war of non state actors and civilians taking intermittent direct parts in hostility. In light of the above changes, it is timely to review the Geneva Conventions – particularly as they impact on medical procedures and practitioners. We need to revisit humanitarian principles to preserve life and dignity. What are the Geneva Conventions? The Geneva Conventions protect those no longer acting in hostilities (those “hors de combat”), civilians, sick, wounded and shipwrecked and prisoners of war (PWs). The Geneva Conventions and Hague Conventions are a subset of ‘international humanitarian law’ – jus in bello. Breaches of the laws of war are war crimes - willful killing, torture, genocide and inhumane treatment. How do the Geneva Conventions Affect Medical Personnel? Medical personnel may carry arms for self-defence and patient protection. They can remove weapons or ammunition from wounded and sick. Medical transport, displaying protective insignia, cannot have mounted weaponry but can have armed escorts. Patent consent is expected for medical care. Medical Personnel can be charged if they violate the laws of war, including: injuring or killing non-combatants; failing to provide essential care; exposing sick or injured to infection or contagion; affronting dignity; and subjecting protected people to humiliation, intimidation or degrading treatment. Conflict of Duties Doctors in uniform have divergent responsibilities: (1) whom to treat and when; (2) harmful interrogations; (3) respecting ethical codes of conduct and human rights. Careful consideration needs to be given to the question - are medical ethics in armed conflicts identical to those in peacetime? Medicine and Law (2018) 37:2(2) (Guest Editor: Oren Asman), WAML and The Bioethics and Law Initiative, Tel Aviv University.