Armed Medics

[nsmedicman]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

    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]

     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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.