Abstract
The phrase medical neutrality is founded upon the Humanitarian Principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality, and operational independence that apply to United Nations agencies and humanitarian non-government organisations during disasters and complex humanitarian emergencies. Sovereign governments are responsible for health services to meet the needs of their citizens, and humanitarian organisations may only operate with the legal permission of the state. This places a tension between medical services operating under state authorities and those that operate under humanitarian principles. This paper postulates that health services that operate under the authority of a state cannot be neutral nor operationally independent. However, they must comply with the principles of humanity and impartiality of the Geneva Conventions and wider International Humanitarian Law. It considers the rights of protection for both military and civilian health services during conflict when the definition of combatant is blurred. It closes by discussing the implications for health services when at least one party deliberately targets non-combatants and other elements of critical civilian infrastructure as a means of waging war. Thus the phrase ‘medical humanity’ rather than ‘medical neutrality’ might be better to emphasise the right to protection for health services as non-combatant or civil defence organisations.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Title of host publication | Challenging Medical Neutrality. Military and Humanitarian Health Ethics |
| Editors | Daniel Messelken, Ana Barbar |
| Place of Publication | Cham |
| Publisher | Springer Nature Switzerland AG |
| Pages | 73-83 |
| Number of pages | 10 |
| ISBN (Electronic) | 978-3-031-69398-4 |
| ISBN (Print) | 978-3-031-69397-7 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 21 Oct 2024 |