# Armed Medics



## nsmedicman (23 Oct 2005)

OK....OK.....I know this has probably been discussed before, but I couldn't ind a thread that stated so. I know that medical personnel are permitted to be armed for self-defence and defence of wounded. What about a Med Tech serving with a combat arms unit? Maybe some of our more experienced members could answer this question.


----------



## Cansky (23 Oct 2005)

I served with 3 PPCLI in Afghanstan in 02.  I carried a C8 (with 300 rounds) and a Pistol (with 30 rounds).  Although I was with a light infantry unit and did go on combat ops (Op Cherekee Sky) I still fall under the Geneva Convention and can only use my weapons in defence of the wounded and self defence.  We didn't contact any enemy on my op but if we had I was told to shadow the Platoon WO and treat any wounded.  Hope this answer your question.


----------



## nsmedicman (23 Oct 2005)

Kirsten, that answers my question perfectly. I was kind of foggy concerning the idea. That 45 min lecture (4 years) ago on the Geneva Convention, just doesn't seem familiar to me........... ;D


----------



## Brad Sallows (23 Oct 2005)

Just to amplify Kirsten's answer, note the assigned duties must be appropriate-to-role as in the example. Putting the accompanying medics into a shell scrape on the company perimeter to "defend themselves", for example, would be inappropriate.  The rules shouldn't be bent to place GC non-combatants in a situation calculated to force them to employ arms in the general defence of the unit.


----------



## Fraser.g (23 Oct 2005)

nsmedicman said:
			
		

> Kirsten, that answers my question perfectly. I was kind of foggy concerning the idea. That 45 min lecture (4 years) ago on the Geneva Convention, just doesn't seem familiar to me........... ;D



Last time I checked Geneva Convention was part of MCSP.

If your unit is that "foggy" I would recommend a refresher. If you want, I have the LP along with a great quiz at the end in the form of a  Jeopardy Game.

GF


----------



## Cansky (24 Oct 2005)

I just finished reviewing the latest MCSP for Reg force QL 3 & 5's.  Saw no mention of Geneva convention in it.  It would be an excellent idea to inclued it though.  I know for myself the last time I officially was taught anything to do with the Geneva Convention was in '91.  It could even be included on the new reg QL 6A course. This topic is always a sore spot for medics and other trades who have no knowledge of what we can do in regards to it.  I know of medics who refuse to use grenades on a range because of Geneva Convention.


----------



## medicineman (24 Oct 2005)

GC, as well as Code of Conduct and rudimentary LoAC was on my JLC.  We did a little bit of in class wargaming over some scenarios with it.

MM


----------



## Fraser.g (25 Oct 2005)

Kirsten Luomala said:
			
		

> I just finished reviewing the latest MCSP for Reg force QL 3 & 5's.   Saw no mention of Geneva convention in it.   It would be an excellent idea to inclued it though.   I know for myself the last time I officially was taught anything to do with the Geneva Convention was in '91.   It could even be included on the new reg QL 6A course. This topic is always a sore spot for medics and other trades who have no knowledge of what we can do in regards to it.   I know of medics who refuse to use grenades on a range because of Geneva Convention.



Serial 3.5 of the reserve MCSP is"Describe how the Geneva Convention Influences Medical Care in an Operational Environment". I do not know what other differences there are but this seems to be a glaring short fall.

GF


----------



## PRL ER NO (26 Oct 2005)

This is a good topic, especially now with the role of the Medical field in combat/missions.  I am currently in Afghanistan, sadly soon to leave, and the topic of use of force and Rules of Engagement came up last month here.  There is a fine line, I feel, between the Geneva Convention and the use of force.  Sadly, the combatant here do not recognize the RED CROSS I wear on my left arm as other members of NATO and ISAF who are here do.  Most of the countries and conflict we, as health care professionals, are entering in these days don't buy in to the same meaning to the Geneva Convention as we do.

I have had the "hero" pictures done here and my wife has shown them to friends and family back in Canada, they all ask what am I doing with a weapon when I am a nurse.  The point I bring out to my wife is that to the combatants in the area I am a target and may have to protect and defend myself and patients/causalities.

As long as we, as members of the Health Services, respect and follow the Gevena Convention, which may include yearly teaching of it's key points as previous state,  we should not be afraid of carrying arms nor be afraid to use them as necessary.

*Militi Succurimus*


----------



## FormerHorseGuard (27 Oct 2005)

I was wondering what  the policy  or thoughts were on these over there missions. we signed the conventions, they did not.  the red cross armband has beena  target of snipers for years, every conflist has stories or events where the medic was targeted  by the opposing side, even by  the sides who have signed the conventions. 

I have heard stories of the SS units machine gunning medics looking after wounded on both sides, good way  to slow the advance down, shoot the medics, no medics, troops might not be willing to risk fire if they know there is no medic to tend to the wounds they  might suffer.
Terrorists  see red crosses and see the fact it is a good target, take out the red cross and they  get to wound or kill more people.

Nam medics could carry  weapons and used them to defend themselves and the wounded. Because they  knew if they  were captured they got no special treatment from the North.

 I would think that  Medics and other non combat troops have to start looking at maybe defending themselve and being more soldier like  in these new wars because there is no protection for them under treaties or conventions. it is not like we are fighting a country  and its army, we are fighting now more like street gangs with their code of conduct. 

I think they consider anyone not on their side fair game and we should spin up training for the medics and hope they have the mental powers to put the training to use.  rather bury  1 of them then bury  one medic


----------



## medicineman (27 Oct 2005)

I think it kind of depended where you were in the Second World War that decided whether or not you were armed or not - fighting the Germans in Erupe and Africa, they generally weren't, whereas in SE Asia, they were, since the Japanese weren't big fans of the GC, or Signatories for that matter.  I think even in Vietnam, it also depended which arm of the service you were in or even branch of said service.  In the begining of the war, generally Army medics only carried pistols, whereas Navy corpsmen carried rifles.  Same with the Special Forces types.  As things progressed, the Army guys generally started carrying M-16's alot more, realizing that the asses they save might just be their own. I can think of more than the odd occasion over the years where I was glad to have my bullet launcher with me - between drunken nimrods and worrying about potential car bombers, I felt quite happy to have the hardware.
     On a different level though, there definitely has to be a bit more thought put into what we do carry, (and yes, in this day and age, we DEFINITELY must be armed) - I can remember more than once some poor slob getting smoked in the head with my SMG (yes, I've been around that long) or C1 or C7 while doing litter drills, or worse, not being able to bring my weapon to bear in a hurry in the confined space of my ambulance cab because some thoughtful person didn't feel that I needed a pistol and or a C8.  There has to be a happy compromise somewhere - the C8 or some equivalent has been an argument that has long resounded in many medic circles, but falls on deaf ears, as apparently there is some sort of LCF or something that seems to bar alot of us from carrying them.  The weapons are out there, but every time we ask, for the most part, we get the 4 headed alien look and someone with no use for the thing gets it instead.  Or of course the less polite thing happens...
     Apologies for the rant - needed to get it off my chest.  Any thoughts?

MM


----------



## Old Ranger (3 Dec 2005)

medicineman said:
			
		

> I can remember more than once some poor slob getting smoked in the head with my SMG (yes, I've been around that long) or C1 or C7 while doing litter drills, or worse, not being able to bring my weapon to bear in a hurry in the confined space of my ambulance cab because some thoughtful person didn't feel that I needed a pistol and or a C8.
> 
> Apologies for the rant - needed to get it off my chest.   Any thoughts?
> 
> MM



As a proactive Medic, your entire unit needs practice in litter drills.  The need to be familiar with lifting, patient positioning, direction from the Medic etc.

You need patients for these drills, why not the people in charge of what wpn you are issued?

Some people get inspired to change, when the idea smacks them right in the face.....go figure.

As per C-7 in the Cab, ask these same people to show you how to properly bring your wpn to bear...
it could be them you are protecting.

Remember, the needle can go in the nice way, or the army way.

Don't appologize for that Rant!!!

Good luck,

Ben


----------



## medicineman (4 Dec 2005)

Unfortunately, the dudes/ettes getting smoked with the weapon were more often than not coworkers in Fd Ambs.  The other problem out there is that there are still infantry guys that feel that they will always be there to look after us, so wtf.  I even remember one Ops WO when I was working with a certain infantry unit who said  that my weapon was shooting just fine one day while we were test firing in theatre - my sights for some reason were so out to lunch that I had to put tracers down to see where I was shooting.  No shots were even on the paper at that time, but his attittude was I wasn't likely to have to shoot.  I had to point out to him that quite often, my partner and I were either on our own or were in fact part of a security detail during our day to day work.  Then I proceeded to scare the snot out of my platoon warrant by putting a group into a looney sized area on the target (when I finally got onto the paper that is   ).  Oh well.

MM


----------



## Armymedic (4 Dec 2005)

case and point, from this thread:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/36581/post-297721.html#msg297721



> Treatment and ongoing exams are going on as we heard several loud pops and see 2-3 baddies attacking us from across the LZ, as the helo guide withdraws to his 'yote. The medics scramble to grab their weapons from the back of the amb and begin to return fire. After the trooper remounts his veh the MG opens up.



Not always do we get security nor are they the first to be able to engage.


----------



## Dale Turner (27 Dec 2005)

Just my 2 cents, and I think everyone has touched on it during this thread. The GC is slowly on its way out of being a relevant convention that respectable countries and republics will honour and obey. It's kind of pointless to be flashing our red cross if it just makes it easier for the enemy to pick us out/off. 

I agree with the point though that medics should'nt be employed that make it inevitable that we will have to engage the enemy in hostile fire. ie; sentry duties and the like. But to take a page from the TCCC concept winning the fire fight is making the scene safe. I feel if the medic is involved in such a situation "have at er" and win the fire fight. But after the fire fight is won the medic needs to stay back and begin the Tx of any potential casualties including the bastard that just tried to slot you. Let our combat arms brothers/sisters finish the job.

As for the type of weapons for medic use I think the C8 would suffice for reg and res use. Its easier for logistics purposes if nothing else. The MP5 might work also but I'm not too familiar with it's stopping power.

Getting back to the GC though, it was in basic that I was first formally introduced to it and it was in basic that I last heard anything about it. I sure did'nt know it was part of MCSP. Life in the Mo. There's no life like it. ;D


----------



## RogueMedic (29 Mar 2006)

I was on ROTO 11 in Bosnia and was armed with a C7 in the cab and pistol on my leg.  We are always told that we are a soldier first no matter what trade and I agree with it.  sqn_medic hits it right on the head when he says win the fire fight.  That extra rifle shooting down range is never a bad thing.  When the fight is done... strap on your red cross and get to work.


----------



## William Webb Ellis (29 Mar 2006)

When I was in Croatia in the early 90's, I had a C7 (with C79) and if I recall our amb tracks had .50's on them.


----------



## 043 (29 Mar 2006)

I am confused.........and it doesn't usually take much.

Hospitals may have personnel who carry arms for *self-defense or for the maintenance of order*; *may be protected * by a picket, by sentries, or by an escort; may temporarily store small arms and ammunition taken from patients; may be associated with a veterinary unit; and may treat civilians. (Convention I, Art. 22);

Hospital ships may not commit acts harmful to the enemy, or use or possess a secret communication code. If they do, they lose their protections under the Geneva Conventions after due warning has been given and a reasonable time limit has passed. (Convention II, Art. 34)

Hospitals may not be used to commit acts harmful to the enemy. If they do, they lose their protections under the Geneva Conventions after due warning has been given and a reasonable time limit has passed. (Convention I, Art. 21);

Medical units may have personnel who carry arms for *self-defense or for the maintenance of order*; *may be protected by a picket, by sentries*, or by an escort; may temporarily store small arms and ammunition taken from patients; may be associated with a veterinary unit; and may treat civilians. (Convention I, Art. 22);

Medical units may not be used to commit acts harmful to the enemy. If they do, they lose their protections under the Geneva Conventions after due warning has been given and a reasonable time limit has passed. (Convention I, Art. 21);

I have lived the arguements in the past both on ex and on op and I have always wondered why things are the way they are. I want peoples opinions because no where in Convention I does it mention individual medical pers. In fact, it states: Art. 22. The following conditions shall not be considered as depriving a medical unit or establishment of the protection guaranteed by Article 19: (1) That the personnel of the unit or establishment are armed, and that they use the arms in their own defence, or in that of the wounded and sick in their charge. (2) That in the absence of armed orderlies, the unit or establishment is protected by a picket or by sentries or by an escort. 

In my outside the box thinking, this does not exclude a medic from doing sentry, manning a perimeter trench, manning the air sentry hatch, etc. I think that detailed training in this GC does need to be conducted and not only to Medical Pers but to all arms. There is too much time wasted on the phone when a medic refuses to do picket because "of the GC". What happens is the SSM calls the Adj, the Adj calls the Fd Amb adj who calls the Fd Amb CO who says yes, Medics can do sentry and then all the way back down the chain.

My 2 cents for your attacks.


----------



## RogueMedic (29 Mar 2006)

It is a constant fight that all medics face... to do sentry or not to.  Some might feel that a medic is too great a resource to throw on the front whereas others feel the medic should not be exempt from common soldering duty.  My personal feelings to the whole thing is simple...  No I don't think medics should be on the regular guard duty roster.... Guard duty is not what a medic is trained to do and putting a medic in that position is a waste of resources and serves no advantage to the company.  However, if one of the guys that I am humping with obviously needs a break... I have no quams in relieving him for a round so he can catch up on some sleep.  The boys look out for my wellbeing so in turn, I look out for theirs.  I don't feel a medic is better then a combat arms soldier and is therefore exempt, it's just a matter of skills.  Combat arms are trained and practiced in the arts of war and therefore are more efficient at it.  Medics are trained in the medical arts and are better suited treating casualties rather then putting rounds down range.


----------



## Dale Turner (29 Mar 2006)

Unfortunately a lot of units have been subject to a lot of different medics with a lot of different interpretations of what their role is in the big picture and about the GC in general. Some may be all for sentry duties/pickets etc. others feel that they should be left alone until sick parade in the a.m. 

There definately needs to be some clear direction as to what medical pers are allowed to do under the GC and what their role is when deployed. 

That being said if medics are required to provide security and man trenches etc. then there also needs to be some standardized training provided to medics to perform the job properly. If I was an infanteer and my sentries were medics who's only sentry experiences were during their basic training course I'm pretty sure I would'nt be sleeping too restfully that night.


----------



## RogueMedic (29 Mar 2006)

> That being said if medics are required to provide security and man trenches etc. then there also needs to be some standardized training provided to medics to perform the job properly. If I was an infanteer and my sentries were medics who's only sentry experiences were during their basic training course I'm pretty sure I would'nt be sleeping too restfully that night.



sqn_medic hit the nail on the head!  The regulation makers need to grasp the concept that is the common view.  Who would you rather to provide medical assistance... a medic or an infanteer.  Likewise who would you feel safer conducting security duty... an infanteer or a medic?

This of course isn't to say that soldiers wouldn't help eachother out whenever required... no matter what trade you are.  We are all on the same team.


----------



## Armymedic (29 Mar 2006)

Gentlemen,
Every Med Tech in the CF belongs to a medical unit, and ultimately CF H Svc Gp. Therefore all medics carry weapons for their own self-defence, and must act in accordance with GC IRT how they engage the enemy. That being medics can not undertake offensive operations against en forces. They can only shoot back, within established ROEs.

So basically, ask yourself if you want your sentry only to be able to fire their weapon in self defence?

This is why Med Techs (actually any pers under GC rules) shall not be used as a sentry/guard/security in operations overseas.



			
				2023 said:
			
		

> In my outside the box thinking, this does not exclude a medic from doing sentry, manning a perimeter trench, manning the air sentry hatch, etc.


Right, of a medical facility, or ambulance. Not the infantry company position, while they send out fighting patrols.


----------



## 043 (29 Mar 2006)

I'll call you on this:

So when your Bn's medics are decentralized and with the Coy's, they man a trench, in depth of course, however they cannot fire when the position is being over run until they are about to be shot?? I disagree with your point Ashley, and find it silly really. Explain how the JTF medics can do security details, explain why 2 Fd Amb does live fire defensive ex's, explain why Fd Amb does harbour security?? For self defence practice???

"That being medics can not undertake offensive operations against en forces." Oh really??? Define Offensive Operations for me please. Does not the current action in Afganistan count as Offensive Action? Didn't the storming of Juno Beach count as Offensive Action?? So if there is GC Convention being breached, and it goes to trial, you are saying that because medics were on the ground during an advance, it was a breach of the GC??????????????? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

I think the GC is very open to arguement for a reason so that medics, can be used as a rifle when push comes to shove. Read them in detail and let me know the loopholes you find..............you won't be able write them down in a weeks time.

BTW, the smallest manouver group/unit in the Military is a fireteam so unless there are two of you medics, you are individuals and not a unit.

Chimo!!!!!!!!!!! 

How's Pet making out? Still trying to shove 5 lbs of s**t in a 2 lb bag or what?


----------



## Armymedic (29 Mar 2006)

Pet is Pet, no change.

I have never seen 2 FD Amb do a live fire anything. Its scary enough on the prepared standard ranges. I can't speak of JTF medics cause I honestly do not know.

If a medic is still in his trench while his campany has been over run, he is to surrender, identifying himself as a medic, and he should be given permission to care for any causalties. Fd Amb does harbour and stand too drills, but as part of that role we can not fire first, only return fire after identifying ourselves as a medical unit/facility.

During the advance, Med techs should not be in the lead section, with the lead platoon, maneuvering in attacking the enemy posn. That would be offensive actions. We are not allowed to fire unless in self defence. We should be a little ways behind the lead company working on the fallen.


----------



## 043 (29 Mar 2006)

Armymedic said:
			
		

> Pet is Pet, no change.
> 
> I have never seen 2 FD Amb do a live fire anything. Its scary enough on the prepared standard ranges. I can't speak of JTF medics cause I honestly do not know.
> 
> ...



I know that you are defending your Branch, and I respect that however, you really need to think in a broad sense because Offensive Action is exactly what your company medics are doing, whether or not they are at the pointy end or not. Surrender after letting the rest of your Coy, Pn get overrun??? An honourable profession.

I know what you are saying though, I honestly do. I just have my opinions of the GC. 

Another question: where does it say that a Medic can't provide cover during a search?


----------



## Armymedic (29 Mar 2006)

How narrow do you need the paint brush?

Nowhere does it say that, but why would you? 
Its the same a a infantry coy commander saying, "hey, you Engineers can do a section attack, you lead the company at the next posn."

Sure, you could, but not as well, and he could lose a valuable resource. If you only have one or two Coy medics, why put them out front where they can get snuffed?

We must follow the spirit of the GC, as well as act in accordance to what is written. And yes, I am repeating the party lines...but that is the official stance, and it is so for very good reasons.


----------



## old medic (29 Mar 2006)

The following is an older reference (Memo), but I assume still valid. 
All medics were given a copy of this.

Quote



> Office Of The Judge Advocate General
> Memorandum
> 3440-13 (DLaw)
> 
> ...


----------



## William Webb Ellis (30 Mar 2006)

Is the CG a:

1-reciprocal agreement between the signatories 

or

2-a proclamation of the signatory countries intentions/action during conflict

I guess the question is do you only owe the duty(s) set out in the CG to those who are signatory.


----------



## old medic (30 Mar 2006)

http://www.hrweb.org/legal/geneva1.html

The answer to that is, you owe them to everybody, even if they don't, or didn't sign.

CHAPTER I
General Provisions

    * Article 1. The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances.

    * Article 2. In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peacetime, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

      The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

      Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

    * Article 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
          o (1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
                + (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
                + (b) taking of hostages;
                + (c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
                + (d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. 

          o (2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for. An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

            The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.

            The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.

    * Article 4. Neutral Powers shall apply by analogy the provisions of the present Convention to the wounded and sick, and to members of the medical personnel and to chaplains of the armed forces of the Parties to the conflict, received or interned in their territory, as well as to dead persons found.

    * Article 5. For the protected persons who have fallen into the hands of the enemy, the present Convention shall apply until their final repatriation.

    * Article 6. In addition to the agreements expressly provided for in Articles 10, 15, 23, 28, 31, 36, 37 and 52, the High Contracting Parties may conclude other special agreements for all matters concerning which they may deem it suitable to make separate provision. No special agreement shall adversely affect the situation of the wounded and sick, of members of the medical personnel or of chaplains, as defined by the present Convention, nor restrict the rights which it confers upon them.

      Wounded and sick, as well as medical personnel and chaplains, shall continue to have the benefit of such agreements as long as the Convention is applicable to them, except where express provisions to the contrary are contained in the aforesaid or in subsequent agreements, or where more favourable measures have been taken with regard to them by one or other of the Parties to the conflict.

    * Article 7. Wounded and sick, as well as members of the medical personnel and chaplains, may in no circumstances renounce in part or in entirety the rights secured to them by the present Convention, and by the special agreements referred to in the foregoing Article, if such there be.


----------



## William Webb Ellis (30 Mar 2006)

Thanks but it makes me wonder if the CG is antiquated in today's conflicts.  The majority of which are not traditional.  It seems like were are playing the same sport but with different rules.


----------



## Brad Sallows (30 Mar 2006)

There are three perspectives to consider: the ethical, the legal, and the practical.

The ethical (humanitarian) idea is that non-combatant members of military forces (eg. chaplains and medical personnel) and those who are hors de combat should be little oases of inviolability - to the extent practicable - in the cauldron of battle.  In exchange for that protection which it is the duty of combatants to grant, protected persons have a reciprocal duty to refrain from active hostilities, to be identifiable and prepared to self-identify, and to assert their protected status until it is clear that they are not being granted protected status, at which time the inherent right of self-defence kicks in.  In short, were the battalion medical officer and chaplain the last men standing in the square after the artillery had blasted it to shreds with cannister, it were not to them to defend the honour of the regiment but rather to surrender and seek to care for and minister to the survivors.  The ethical idea is very clear, and so when wrestling with an ethical dilemma regarding employment of protected persons, the question to ask is whether one is seeking to create a loophole to bypass that basic idea.

The ethical idea is codified in the GCs, which are not only unilaterally binding on the original signatories, but have the status of customary international law - rules by which all are now expected to abide, or be judged.  The basic idea that protected persons seek only to defend themselves (and those under their protection) when necessary and eschew active engagement once security is re-established.  Again, when one is hunting through the GCs by line and article to find loopholes, the question to ask is whether one is again seeking to subvert the underlying intention.

The practical idea is that no one should write a cheque that someone else may have to pay.  If one doesn't clearly mark installations and vehicles and people, or one contributes to ambiguity and misidentification by siting near military targets and mounting heavy or crew-served weapons and manning general defensive positions while serving in combat units, then it is possible someone else is going to be the victim of a foe who has decided Canadians are not following the rules and has ceased to trouble himself too much to separate combatants and non-combatants in his sights.  Your misuse or incompetent use of protected status could cost someone else life or limb and broadly compromise protections for an extended period.  As for the individual medic attached to a platoon or company, I'd suppose you to be neglecting your duties if in a firefight you were laying down fire instead of keeping track of where everyone is, planning where to site your CCP and how to get safely to and from it, and responding to cries of "Medic!" or "Corpsman!".  Like the platoon commander, you have something more important to do than contribute a couple of magazines of semi-automatic rifle fire to the orchestra of C9s and C6s and C7s and grenades and rockets.

old medic has done an excellent job of identifying pertinent information and highlighting key points.  Hopefully this issue has been nailed down.


----------



## RogueMedic (30 Mar 2006)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> As for the individual medic attached to a platoon or company, I'd suppose you to be neglecting your duties if in a firefight you were laying down fire instead of keeping track of where everyone is, planning where to site your CCP and how to get safely to and from it, and responding to cries of "Medic!" or "Corpsman!".  Like the platoon commander, you have something more important to do than contribute a couple of magazines of semi-automatic rifle fire to the orchestra of C9s and C6s and C7s and grenades and rockets.



You've brought forward an interesting take on the whole issue and have effectively changed some of my current views on the topic.  I agree with every word that you are saying regarding the set duties of each soldier and if a medic is putting rounds down range then they are not attending to their primary function which is to attend to the wounded...  I am still left stomaching the fact that it seems we are now fighting enemies who don't play by the rules and it brings about the feeling of the increased demand to protect ones self.  Where is the line drawn when fighting one of these enemies... When is it best to replace the scalpel with the rifle....


----------



## MapleLeaf4Evr (30 Mar 2006)

I don't see what the big misunderstanding is here.  Being a medic does not make you a non-combatant.  Being an infanteer doesn't make you a combatant.  The GC says that those who wish to be considered non-combatants should display a red cross/crescent moon/whatever to inform the enemy of this.  This can be anyone from the infanteer who is being employed as a stretcher bearer, to a chaplain, or the medic who is not acting in a combat role.  Protection under the red cross has nothing to do with your trade, but is concerned with what role you are fulfilling.  If you want a medic tagging along on your offensive operation and you want them to engage the enemy according to ROE, bring them along, just don't give them a red cross.  As far as a medic putting rounds downrange in a firefight, that's what they should be doing as long as they aren't wearing the red cross.  Both TCCC and PHTLS protocols state that the care you can deliver while under effective fire is zero to crappy.  That's just my humble opinion though.


----------



## Armymedic (30 Mar 2006)

You don't see it because from what I gather from your statements, you do not understand what we are talking about.
Irregardless of  enemy, we as signators of the GC must still follow the rules. 

What the US Army does (and they do exactly as you say...their medics do not wear a cross) is borderline unethical and outside the guidance of our Surg Gen.

Although I do not completly disagree with your statements, as they are becoming a reality in the unconventional operations we undertake. In the conventional role, a med tech should not be able to engage the enemy, because there should be atleast one cbt arms sub unit between him and the enemy on the attack. You must realize what is done and what is right.


----------



## MapleLeaf4Evr (30 Mar 2006)

Okay, I'm way off then.  I thought I had it cased.  I didn't know that our Surgeon General outlined policy on this.



			
				Armymedic said:
			
		

> Irregardless of  enemy, we as signators of the GC must still follow the rules.



I never said that we need to trash the GC or go against it.  I just don't see how what I said would violate the GC.



> Art. 24. Medical personnel exclusively engaged in the search for, or the collection, transport or treatment of the wounded or sick, or in the prevention of disease, staff exclusively engaged in the administration of medical units and establishments, as well as chaplains attached to the armed forces, shall be respected and protected in all circumstances.



A medic who is not displaying the red cross and is engaging the enemy according to ROE wouldn't fit under this description.  Since they are engaging enemy which means they aren't exclusively dealing with casualties, they wouldn't be considered "medical personel" or afforded protection under the GC.  I'm just trying to figure this out.


----------



## Brad Sallows (30 Mar 2006)

There are likely to always be belligerents whose respect for Law of Armed Conflict ranges from poor to none.  It is a risk that must be borne along with the risk of mistakes or violations in the heat of battle by otherwise scrupled combatants.  The line is drawn in the same place; what can be done is to incorporate that factor (disrespect of laws and customs of war) into your (rapid) estimate of the situation when deciding whether to prepare to defend yourself and those in your care.

>Being a medic does not make you a non-combatant.

If a medic shreds the Geneva Card and foregoes permanent protected status, then perhaps not.  Those who are not merely protected "while so employed" have permanent obligations.

>If you want a medic tagging along on your offensive operation and you want them to engage the enemy according to ROE, bring them along, just don't give them a red cross.

AFAIK, no-one below the level of formation commander (ie. brigade or higher) has the authority (unless devolved) to order Geneva symbols to not be displayed.  AFAIK, it is not given to anyone below the national political authority to decide whether Canada will comply with international law.  If Canada decides that our personnel who currently enjoy permanent protected non-combatant status will no longer do so, then "you" might be free to give any fire control orders "you" choose to "your" medics.  Until then, it's not "your" privilege to decide whether the Geneva Card in that person's wallet is merely a "get-out-of-jail-if-taken-prisoner" convenience for you to ignore at your will, thereby endangering all protected persons in our forces.


----------



## Armymedic (30 Mar 2006)

MapleLeaf4Evr said:
			
		

> A medic who is not displaying the red cross and is engaging the enemy according to ROE wouldn't fit under this description.  Since they are engaging enemy which means they aren't exclusively dealing with casualties, they wouldn't be considered "medical personel" or afforded protection under the GC.  I'm just trying to figure this out.



On this you are correct. Think SOF medics. They are medically trained, but would not have GC protection.


----------



## 043 (30 Mar 2006)

I see I got the ball rolling on some great discussion here. I look forward to reading it all. Thanks to everyone who is contributing!


----------



## MapleLeaf4Evr (30 Mar 2006)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> AFAIK, no-one below the level of formation commander (ie. brigade or higher) has the authority (unless devolved) to order Geneva symbols to not be displayed.  AFAIK, it is not given to anyone below the national political authority to decide whether Canada will comply with international law.  If Canada decides that our personnel who currently enjoy permanent protected non-combatant status will no longer do so, then "you" might be free to give any fire control orders "you" choose to "your" medics.  Until then, it's not "your" privilege to decide whether the Geneva Card in that person's wallet is merely a "get-out-of-jail-if-taken-prisoner" convenience for you to ignore at your will, thereby endangering all protected persons in our forces.



Obviously I wasn't implying that it was up to individual soldiers to decide whether or not to display the red cross.



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> If a medic shreds the Geneva Card and foregoes permanent protected status, then perhaps not.  Those who are not merely protected "while so employed" have permanent obligations.



So all medics in the CF are permanently subject to the GC by our doctrine?


----------



## Armymedic (30 Mar 2006)

MapleLeaf4Evr said:
			
		

> So all medics in the CF are permanently subject to the GC by our doctrine?



Yes.


----------



## MapleLeaf4Evr (30 Mar 2006)

Okay, I'll shut up now


----------



## Hot Lips (3 Apr 2006)

Just a comment...I am in the process of joining and have been a nurse for some time...I was asked during my interview if I would have any qualms about carrying and/or using a firearm...I replied, "of course not"

Although I have much to learn about the GC I still realize and accept openly the carrying and useage of firearms by medical personnel...if I didn't want to carry a firearm I could have stayed working in ER...that has it's moments and occasionally you wish you were carrying arms...he he he just kidding.


----------



## Dale Turner (4 Apr 2006)

I have to admit I've learned more about the GC on this thread than I have in my 5 yrs in the CF. ;D

I'd just like to have something clarified though. If a medical facility is responsible for it's own protection ie; sentries, are we not then putting medics in a position that they will have to engage the enemy in a combat situation? I know it's unlikely in a conventional setting but in a "three block war" the enemy could all of a sudden appear on your rear echelon positions. 

And in regards to offensive vs. defensive weapons dosen't it depend on how you employ the weapons that determine it's classification? So if I'm a sentry for my UMS I want something that I can defend myself, my trench partner, and my facility staff with and a C7 not going to cut it.


----------



## medicineman (4 Apr 2006)

The crew served weapon thing came up when we had armed armoured ambs in Yugo until about 93ish - the JAG quashed it (gives it a combat vehicle silhouette).  I think the closest we might be able to get away with is a C-9, as it is not a crew served weapon (don't hold your breath though).  Having said that though, when I was in 11 Med in Vic, we had an entitlement to a C-2, which was our equivalent then.  The Command Surg Mobile Command (yes I'm dating myself) was rather put out with us during the Ryerson-Shillington that we had M-72's on our sentry posts as well as the C-2's though...

The sentries on the facility, though could become engaged, are in fact using the self/collective defence role though - they aren't actively going out to find bad guys (oops - can we in fact do clearance patrols on our own positions?).  That's how we get away with that.  A great big legal conundrum - but as the saying goes, better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

MM


----------



## Dale Turner (4 Apr 2006)

Ok thanks for that.

It's too bad that we have to be afraid of legal repraisals, physical harm or death because of the GC.  If the GC was deemed unnecessary then we would only have to worry about the latter two. ;D


----------



## elder medic (23 Apr 2006)

At the risk of repeating myself, I say again that I am in constant amazement at the change of procedures and attitudes existing today as opposed to my time some 50 years ago. The biggest joke in Korea was the bulletproofing  provided by the GC cards. China and North Korea did NOT honour anything except themselves.  We were all armed and expected to use them as required. When I was with Dog Co'y, 2 RCR and sent on patrol with the company, I was expected to both defend myself and when required to be offensive, (more so than usual).  Red Cross arm bands? We didn't even know where in the stores system they were. I don't know of any medical type there who ever wore one. All MO's carried sidearms, and when I was at the RAP with 1 RCR I had to know where my weapon was at all times. As for vehicle markings-- when at 25 Fd Amb ADS, we lost an ambulance to an antitank rocket in the engine compartment one night, killing medic and driver, but all patients survived. With 4 huge crosses on a 15cwt vehicle, even at night it was easy enough to spot.
At 74, I don't see what the problem is. Certainly the main job is to preserve the lives of others as we (you) are trained to do, but for God's sake, CYA at the same time. Common sense should be the prime factor here.That's why you have basic training etc. The bad guys are NOT going to change their point of aim just because you may wave the GC card at them or wear the Red Cross/Crescent/ what have you.  It is only a minor, capitalist nuisance. I am still a peaceful type, do not believe in war, but if anyone comes on my patch, I'll fight to preserve it and worry about the wounded later.  'nuff said.     "Pro Patria"


----------



## Armymedic (23 Apr 2006)

Elder Medic, 
Thank you for your input. Your experience is always of value.

What you had to deal with in that theater of war is similar to what we as medics face today in Afghanistan. And hence, our attitudes should be much of the same. Having, knowing and understanding the "book" rules is essential in our roles. We should always strive to follow the rules and maintain the highest standards. A lot of the rules and emphasis on following the GC came as a result of peacekeeping operations (pko) where the belligerents looked at us to ensure we would follow the rules to the letter, before they actually would. If we as the the third party would not follow the rules of war, why should they? Unfortunately now, the leadership has not caught up to the fact that we are no longer engaging in traditional pko's, and that certain rules and now not followed by the belligerents. Also due to political considerations, maintain the highest standards of conduct, ensure that we are cya from the home front as well.

Of course, the further you are from CFMG HQ and the closer to the first line support you are, the more those rules are blurred.  And, what good are rules if you are dead?

Just to put the case and point on this discussion between what the rules are and how they are followed:
As the NCO IC of a medical section (UMS) I must ensure that my subordinates understand and follow the rules of the GC as they pertain to us. But at the same time, my medics who support the rifle coys of 3 RCR do not wear the cross in the field...but they all do carry a brassard in their med pack, so that if they are captured as POW they can act in accordance with the GC.

Double standard, sure. But we still must know what the rules are and how they are supposed to work.


----------

