RAMC Officers

[squirrel]

It doesn't exactly say not too either.

[PhilB]

What about:-

QUOTE (Phil_B @ Jan 26 2007, 04:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

and will abstain from every voluntary act of mischief and corruption;

[truthergw]

Presumably the doctor and orderlies would be expected to consult the greater good of the person who was in their care as well as being accorded the elementary human right of self preservation. I think there may well be a close similarity between their position and that of an armed policeman.

[squirrel]

Mischief and corruption? That can be interpreted any way you would like to.

Different situation when you are obliged also to comply with the Rules of War, Geneva Codes, Army Act and KR's in an armed conflict.

As the Oath implies, the safety and wellbeing of your patient is your first priority.

You only have to look at the number of gallantry awards to medics to see that most of them thought that way.

[Pete1052]

The following is from the U.S. Army's Field Manual 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare, 18 July 1956 with Change 1, 15 July 1976:

"b. Self-Defense Defined. Although medical personnel may carry arms for self-defense, they may not employ such arms against enemy forces acting in conformity with the law of war. These arms are for their personal defense and for the protection of the wounded and sick under their charge against marauders and other persons violating the law of war. Medical personnel who use their arms in circumstances not justified by the law of war expose themselves to penalties for violation of the law of war and, provided they have been given due warning to cease such acts, may also forfeit the protection of the medical unit or establishment of which they form part or which they are protecting."

[PhilB]

The following is from the U.S. Army's Field Manual 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare, 18 July 1956 with Change 1, 15 July 1976:

"b. Self-Defense Defined. Although medical personnel may carry arms for self-defense, they may not employ such arms against enemy forces acting in conformity with the law of war. These arms are for their personal defense and for the protection of the wounded and sick under their charge against marauders and other persons violating the law of war.

So who do you reckon he can shoot? Phil B

[Pete1052]

Military medical personnel can defend themselves and their patients, but they cannot fire on enemy forces except in self-defense or defense of their patients.

[truthergw]

QUOTE (Phil_B @ Jan 26 2007, 06:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So who do you reckon he can shoot? Phil B

I think that he could shoot anyone who was threatening to harm/kill either them or their casualty. I am not aware of any case in the Great War but in WW2, there were cases of Japanese soldiers atacking medical facilities, staff and patients. The doctors could have legally shot them.

[PhilB]

The doctors could have legally shot them.

And ethically?

[petestarling]

Having looked at a lot of RAMC officer's service over the past 13 years and a bit before, especially Great War officers, you will find that some officers did not wear the Geneva Cross brassard and carried arms. One of our most decorated officers of both wars is recorded as following up the company during an attack in the Great War and when all officers were killed or wounded he took over and led the attack. On another occaision he was awarded a bar to his DSO and it is said was recommended for a VC but was in fact doing something a doctor should not have been doing, bombing.

Today all male and female medical personnel carry arms for self protection, the protection of their patients and medical facilities. Afghanistan is a prime example.

When Pte Michelle Norris first came to the public gaze and appeared in the national press carrying a SA80 I received two letters from the public, not complaining about a women with a rifle but the fact she was wearing a Geneva Cross brassard and when did we start carry arms.

Let's face it, these days the people we are in action against do not respect the Geneva conventions and if it is life and death I would guess doctor's thoughts of ethics do not come in to it.

Pete Starling

[truthergw]

QUOTE (Phil_B @ Jan 26 2007, 07:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And ethically?

Ethics are decided by society so yes, ethically entitled. Morally? Tricky one. In the last analysis, a choice that every doctor would have to make for himself.

[BJanman]

All RAMC were armed ..... a throwback to the days when you couldn't trust a Fuzzywuzzy to respect the Geneva convention.

I'm having a real problem with this statement. I've always been led to believe that the RAMC did not carry arms during the Great War.

Due to the fact that I have read several references on this forum to the RAMC being armed, I have looked out for evidence that proves it one way or another. So far all I've managed to find is a poem called "The R.A.M.C., which I found in The Southern Cross. It was written by W.H. Atkins (Late Cpl. A. Coy., 1/8th Worcs.) The first verse reads

We carry no rifle, bayonet nor bomb, But follow behind in rear

Of the steel fringed line that surges along, With a ringing British cheer

Through the tangles wire of the blown-in trench, Spite of shrapnel or bursting shell,

We make for the spots - Khaki-clad helpless blots - That mark where our front rank fell,

We are the men who carry them back, The wounded, the dying and dead,

It's "Halt!" "Dessing here" - "come, buck-up, old dear,"

You're all right for "Blighty," so be of good cheer -

"Turn him gently, now bandage his head."

The "stretcher-bearers" doing their bit,

Of V.C.'s not many they score,

Yet are earned every day in a quiet sort of way

By the "Royal Army Medical Corps."

The first line clearly states that they were not armed. I have seen evidence that some Senior Medical Officers and some Regimental Medical Officers were armed, but they were not the only ones serving in the RAMC. Wheres the evidence to back up that ALL RAMC were armed.

Sorry, I'm not criticising the statement, I'm trying to learn/understand/get to the facts.

Barbara

[PhilB]

One wonders about RAMC commissioned nurses (I`ve only met male ones) and the lady officers of the QARANCs etc? Phil B

[Muerrisch]

Musketry Regs 1909 amended to 1914, para434A lays down the musketry training for RAMC and AVC, and the standards required.

Early RAMC manuals even describe bayonet and sword drill. I have absolutely no doubt that RAMC were, as a minimum, equipped with side-arms for self protection.

[PhilB]

I assume you`re referring to ORs here, G? Not subject to the same professional ethics as the MOs? Would the officers also have been given compulsory weapon training? Phil B

[BJanman]

Thanks Grumpy for coming back to me and for posting the references to training. I wish I was as confident as you but I still have my doubts.

Wouldn't training in any form of weaponry be a part of the military training that the RAMC would automatically receive? That I would undertstand but does it mean that they automatically wore arms because they had training? And, as Phil B highlights, is there a difference between MOs and ORs. I would be interested to learn more about that.

Another thing that puzzles me. I recently learnt on another thread that hospital ships were not armed but hospital/ambulance transports were. Hospital ships were protected by the Geneva Convention but hosptial transports were not. They both carried patients so hospital ships must of been protected because they did not carry arms. Would this not be the same as RAMC personnel then?

I'm beginning to think that as a Corps the RAMC were unarmed but some were issued with weapons for specific reasons. All I have to do now is find evidence to back up/destroy my theory.

Barbara

[truthergw]

I have no hard evidence about your theory but there is an Official History of Medical Services which presumably would have the information. I'd like to point out that the discussion was about medical officers and doctors and their Hippocratic oath. O.R.s would not have taken this oath so, armed or unarmed, would be a red herring.

[Pete1052]

Another approach to answering this question would be to read the versions of the Geneva and Hague Conventions that were in force during the Great War to see what they said about medical personnel bearing arms. The U.S. Army field manual I quoted earlier in this thread was published in the 1950s, but I assume that the logic it used had origins in the Great War version of the Law of Land Warfare.

[Muerrisch]

The Manual of Military Law 1914 quotes the Geneva Convention in full, and makes it crystal clear that medical staff are entitled to bear arms .......... its a long rambling section, and goes into a lot of detail, but that is the thrust.

We need to bear in mind that there were soldiers still soldiering in 1914 who had faced the Fuzzy-Wuzzies, and the RAMC were supposed to be able to defend themselves. I can see no reason to make RAMC personnel fire the same musketry course as the Royal Artillery, which they did, if they were never to be issued weapons: the Treasury would go ballistic!

[DrB]

'S'truth in the USA. The docs and corpsmen are allowed to carry arms for their personal defense or that of their patients. They are not to be used for any aggresive purpose.

That is in accordance with the Geneva Conventions.

(I carried a forty-five in 'Nam and felt much better for it)

DrB

[PhilB]

Must be a fine distinction sometimes between aggression and defence. You see an enemy coming towards your medical unit with a weapon. He`s 50 yards away. Do you shoot? Phil B

[truthergw]

Is he behaving in a way that entitles you to believe that he poses a threat to you or your charges? If so, you are entitled to shoot. If you get it wrong, you could end up on trial. I still think that there is a close correspondence between the RAMC officer and a present day, armed policeman.

[walrus]

I believe that often, sub-calibre (ie: pistol calibre) weapons such as hand-guns and sub-machine guns, with their limited range, are classified as 'defensive' weapons - as opposed to 'offensive' weaponry such as rifles or assault weapons.

Tom (the Walrus)

[petestarling]

Field Service Manual 1913 - Army Medical Service (Expeditionary Force) states on page 40 what personal kit must be carried as under:

Field Kits Dismounted Officers:

Pistol - (no special pattern, but must carry Government ammunition)

Sword

Scabbard

Cartridges S.A. ball, pistol, Webley 12

It is the same for mounted officers.

There are no arms listed against the personal kit of Warrant Officers, NCO's and men.

So that is what the gospel states.

Pete Starling

[BJanman]

Thanks Pete

Barbara