Advertisement

Is Medicine a Pacifist Vocation or Should Doctors Help Build Bombs?

  • Michael L. Gross
Part of the International Library of Ethics, Law, and the New book series (LIME, volume 41)

Ever since World War I, pacifists have found refuge in medicine. What is it about medicine that is so alluring to those who make nonviolence their creed? And, if pacifists are drawn to medicine in time of war, perhaps medicine has a natural affinity for pacifism? Is medicine a pacifist profession? Must doctors always avoid harming others or may they help build bombs?

Historically, weapons technology asked little of medicine so that military surgeons could ignore both questions and adhere to their “vocational pacifism” without seriously affecting military capabilities. But modern warfare is quickly forcing changes. Increasingly, military and political leaders are turning to a range of weapons, some lethal and some non-lethal, that require the knowledge peculiar to the practice of medicine. Medicine may shun weapons development, as many might prefer, but only by embracing pacifism. Pacifism, however, is not a doctrine that medicine can support with any degree of cogency or enthusiasm. As a result, the medical community must seriously ask itself whether it may take up arms in its professional capacity and use medical expertise to build weapons that harm others. Briefly addressed by the Red Cross in 1996, questions about “the medical profession and the effects of weapons” were soon set aside and remain unanswered.

Keywords

Chemical Weapon Biological Weapon Medical Necessity Conscientious Objector Unnecessary Suffering 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alexander, John P. 1999. Future War: Nonlethal Weapons in the Twenty First Century. New York: Thomas Dunn Books.Google Scholar
  2. Alexander, John P. 2001. An Overview of the Future of Nonlethal Weapons. Medicine, Conflict and Survival 17: 180–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Army Field Manual. 1951. FM 4–02.6, 2002; FM 8–10-1.Google Scholar
  4. Barak, Eitan. 2003. Where Do We Go from Here? Implementation of the Chemical Weapons Convention in the Middle East in the Post-Saddam Era. Security Studies 13: 106–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barcelona Report of the Study Group on Europe’s Security Capabilities. 2004. A Human Security Doctrine for Europe. http://www.lse.ac.uk/Depts/global/Human%20Security%20Report%20Full.pdf. Cited 4 June 2007.
  6. Beam, Thomas E. and Linette R. Sparacino, eds. 2003. Military Medical Ethics, vols. 1–2 (Textbooks of Military Medicine series). Washington, DC: Office of the Surgeon General, Department of the Army, and Borden Institute).Google Scholar
  7. Bender, H.S. 1947. Can a Nonresistant Nurse Serve in the Army? Mennonursing 1.1: 7.Google Scholar
  8. Bowman, Rufus D. 1944. The Church of the Brethren and War 1708–1941. Elgin, IL: Brethren Publishing House.Google Scholar
  9. Brock, Peter and Nigel Young. 1999. Pacifism in the Twentieth Century. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press.Google Scholar
  10. CCW, Protocol IV, 1995. Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons (Protocol IV to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects). Geneva (10 October 1980, 13 October 1995).Google Scholar
  11. CCW, Protocol II, 1980. Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices (Protocol II to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects). Geneva (10 October 1980).Google Scholar
  12. Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction. 1993. http://www.opcw.org/docs/cwc_eng.pdf. Cited 4 June 2007.
  13. Coppernoll, Margaret. 1990. The Nonlethal Weapons Debate. Naval War College Review 52.2: 112–131.Google Scholar
  14. Coupland, Robin M. 1997. Abhorrent Weapons and ‘Superfluous Injury or Unnecessary Suffering’: From Field Surgery to Law. British Medical Journal 315: 1450–1452.Google Scholar
  15. Coupland, Robin M. 1997. Nonlethal Weapons: Precipitating a New Arms Race. BMJ 315: 72 (12 July).Google Scholar
  16. Coupland, Robin M. 1991. The Red Cross Wound Classification, 2nd ed. Geneva: International Committee of the Red Cross.Google Scholar
  17. Coupland, Robin M. 1996. The Effect of Weapons: Defining Superfluous Injury and Unnecessary Suffering. Medicine and Global Survival 3: A1.Google Scholar
  18. Dando, Malcolm. 1996. A New Form of Warfare: The Rise of Nonlethal Weapons. London: Brassey’s.Google Scholar
  19. Davison, Neil. 2007. The Development of ‘Nonlethal’ Weapons During the 1990’s, Occasional Paper No. 2. Bradford Nonlethal Weapons Research Project (BNLWRP). Bradford: Department of Peace Studies, University of Bradford, March 2007.Google Scholar
  20. Declaration Renouncing the Use, in Time of War, of Explosive Projectiles Under 400 Grammes Weight. Saint Petersburg, 29 November/11 December 1868.Google Scholar
  21. Eller, Cynthia. 1991. Conscientious Objectors and the Second World War: Moral and Religious Arguments in Support of Pacifism. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  22. Executive Order 11850. Renunciation of Certain Uses in War of Chemical Herbicides and Riot Control Agents. http://www.fas.org/bwc/eo11850.htm. Cited 4 June 2007.
  23. Fidler, David P. 2005. The Meaning of Moscow: “Nonlethal” Weapons an International Law in the Early 21st Century. International Review of the Red Cross 87.859: 525–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fidler, David P. 2001. Nonlethal Weapons and International Law. Medicine Conflict and Survival 17: 194–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fidler, David P. 1999. The International Legal Implications of ‘Nonlethal’ Weapons. Michigan Journal of International Law 21.1: 51–100.Google Scholar
  26. Gross, Michael L. 2006. Bioethics and Armed Conflict: Moral Dilemmas of Medicine and War. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  27. Hardin, Russell. 1985. Symposium on Ethics and Nuclear Deterrence. Ethics 95.3.Google Scholar
  28. International Committee of the Red Cross. 1996. The Medical Profession and the Effects of Weapons. Geneva: International Committee of the Red Cross, Publication ref. 0668.Google Scholar
  29. Kemp, Kenneth W. 1995. Personal Pacifism. Theological Studies 56: 21–38.Google Scholar
  30. Knickerbocker, Brad. 2003. The Fuzzy Ethics of Nonlethal Weapons. The Christian Science Monitor (February 14, 2003). http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0214/p02s01-usmi.html. Cited 4 June 2007.
  31. Lakoski. Joan, et al. 2000. The Advantages and Limitations of Calmatives for Use as a Nonlethal Technique. Hershey, PA: College of Medicine/State College, PA: Applied Research Laboratory, Pennsylvania State University.Google Scholar
  32. Lewer, Nick and Steven Schofield. 1997. Nonlethal Weapons: A Fatal Attraction? London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  33. Lewer, Nick and Neil Davison. 1995. Nonlethal Technologies—An Overview. Disarmament 1: 36–51.Google Scholar
  34. Monterey Institute of International Studies. 2002. The Chemical and Biological Weapons Nonproliferation Program, Center for Nonproliferation Studies. The Moscow Theater Hostage Crisis: Incapacitants and Chemical Warfare. http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/02110b.htm. Cited 4 June 2007.
  35. National Research Council. 2003. An Assessment of Nonlethal Weapons Science and Technology, Committee for an Assessment of Nonlethal Weapons Science and Technology, Naval Studies Board Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  36. Quester, George H. 1990. The Psychological Effects of Bombing Civilian Populations: Wars of the Past. In The Psychological Dimensions of War, ed. Betty Glad, 201–235. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  37. Seeley, Robert A. 1998. Advice for Conscientious Objectors in the Armed Forces, 5th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Central Committee for Conscientious Objectors.Google Scholar
  38. Statman, Daniel. 2006. Moral Tragedies, Supreme Emergencies and National-Defence. Journal of Applied Philosophy 23.3: 311–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Statman, Daniel. 2006. Supreme Emergencies Revisited. Ethics 117: 58–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. 1971. The Non-use of CB Weapons During World War II. In The Problem of Chemical and Biological Warfare, Volume 1: The Rise of CB Weapons, 294–335. Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. New York: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
  41. Tatum, Arlo. 1970. Handbook for Conscientious Objectors, 10th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Central Committee for Conscientious Objectors.Google Scholar
  42. Teichman, Jenny. 1986. Pacifism and the Just War: A Study in Applied Philosophy. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  43. Thomasma, David C. and Edmund D. Pellegrino. 1993. The Virtues in Medical Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  44. US Department of Defense. 1971. Conscientious Objectors. Washington, DC: Department of Defense, Directive Number 1300.6, August 20, 1971, certified as current, November 21, 2003, paragraph 3.3 (“Non-combatant service”).Google Scholar
  45. van Courtland Moon, John Ellis. 1984. Chemical Weapons and Deterrence: The World War II Experience. International Security 8.4: 3–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wheelis, Mark. 2004. Will the New Biology Lead to New Weapons? Arms Control Today (July/August 2004). http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2004_07–08/Wheelis.asp?print#sidebarnotes3. Cited 4 June 2007.

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael L. Gross
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of International RelationsUniversity of HaifaIsrael

Personalised recommendations