RESUMO
In the context of military medical care, Eisenstein and colleagues have introduced the notion 'left of bang intervention in trauma', which refers to interventions administered before trauma to reduce morbidity and mortality after injury. This paper responds to Eisenstein and colleagues' ethical analysis of such interventions, highlighting the difficulty in distinguishing between purely prophylactic and enhancing interventions. This response also addresses legal issues that arise from left of bang interventions under human rights law and the law of armed conflict, in particular the questions as to whether the consent of service members would need to be obtained and whether the adversary would as a consequence be authorised to resort to more injurious weapons.
Assuntos
Militares , Direitos Humanos , Humanos , Princípios MoraisRESUMO
Under international law, military medical personnel and facilities must be respected and protected in the event of an armed conflict. This special status only applies to personnel and facilities exclusively engaged in certain enumerated medical duties, especially the treatment of the wounded and sick, and the prevention of disease. Military medical personnel have, however, been called upon to engage in the biomedical enhancement of warfighters, as exemplified by the supply of central nervous system stimulants as a fatigue countermeasure. This article argues that international law of armed conflict does not recognise human enhancement as a medical duty, and that engaging in enhancement that is harmful to the enemy results in the loss of special protection normally enjoyed by military medical personnel and units.