Abstract
Obedience as a defining feature of the military extends from the battlefield to the garrison and beyond. In many countries military personnel must not only obey the orders of their commanding officer on the battlefield, but also the orders of their military doctor providing routine medical care back “home”. The requirement for individual soldiers to obey the orders of their military doctor and not seek medical care outside the military health system ensures an efficient organisation that is able to ensure operational effectiveness, however it goes against the basic bio-ethical principle of autonomy in health care.
Compounding the effect of the impact on the lack of autonomy in regards to their health care decisions is the fact that military personnel are often used in medical research. The requirement to obey orders therefore has the potential to make soldiers vulnerable to abuse in regards to experimentation.
This chapter will discuss the ethical issues relating to the duty to obey orders and the impact that this has on military personnel in relation to their health care, particularly when they are involved in medical experimentation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
“Feres Doctrine,” accessed September 12, 2015, http://www.didisignupforthis.com/p/feres-doctrine.html; Harris v KBR (2014) US Supreme Court, accessed September 12, 2015, http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/012015zor_bq7d.pdf
- 2.
Smith & Ors v The Ministry of Defence (2013) UKSC 41, accessed September 12, 2015, http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2013/41.html; “Family Sues MoD over Red Cap’s Death,” BBC News, accessed September 12, 2015, http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-23518564
- 3.
Comcare v Commonwealth of Australia (2012) FCA 1419, accessed September 12, 2015, http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2012/1419.html
- 4.
The exception to this is in the few democratic countries where compulsory national service is still practiced.
- 5.
“Feres v United States, Jefferson v United States, United States v Griggs. “United States Supreme Court”, 340 U.S. 135 (71 S.Ct. 153, 95 L. Ed. 152), 1950.
- 6.
Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, “Smith, Ellis, Allbut (and others) v the Ministry of Defence.” (London: Supreme Court of the United Kingdom 2013): UKSC 41: 72.
- 7.
“Vietnam Veterans of America: Veterans Advocacy,” accessed 07 June 2016, www.swords-to-plowshares.org; “Swords to Ploughshares: What we do,” accessed 07 June 2016, www.swords-to-plowshares.org
- 8.
Feres v. United States, Jefferson v. United States, United States v. Griggs (1950) US Supreme Court no. 340 US 135 (71 S.Ct. 153, 95 L. Ed. 152); Vietnam Veterans of America v. Central Intelligence Agency (2010), US District Court, Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss and Denying Defendant’s Alternative Motion for Summary Judgement, No. C 09–0037 CW. (N.D. Cal. Jan 19, 2010).
- 9.
“Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10”, 1949.
References
“Feres v United States, Jefferson v United States, United States v Griggs. 1950.” United States Supreme Court ,340 U.S. 135 (71 S.Ct. 153, 95 L. Ed. 152).
“Feres Doctrine” http://www.didisignupforthis.com/p/feres-doctrine.html. Accessed 30 Sept 2019.
“Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10”, 1949.
“Vietnam Veterans of America: Veterans Advocacy” www.swords-to-plowshares.org. Washington, DC: Vietnam Veterans of America.
BBC News. 2015. Family Sues MoD over Red Cap’s death. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-23518564. Accessed 30 Sept 2019.
Bellah, Robert N. 1985. Habits of the heart: Individualism and commitment in American life. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Binskin, Air Marshal Mark, Acting Chief of the Defence Force. 2012. Statement from acting chief of the defence force – Response to the letter to the Editor by Dr Ned Dobos. Canberra Times, 06 June.
Chief of Defence Force. 2012. Work health and safety act 2012 (Application to defence activities and defence members), declaration 2012. Canberra: Department of Defence.
Coleman, Nikki. 2019. Why soldiers obey orders. London: Routledge, in press.
Comcare v Commonwealth of Australia. 2012. FCA 1419.
Defence Force Discipline Act (Cth). 1982. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
Department of Defence. 1998. ADFP 102 defence writing standards. 1998. Canberra: Department of Defence.
———. 2005. Defence instruction (general). Admin 24–3. Conduct of human research in defence. 2005. Canberra: Department of Defence.
———. 2007a. Discipline law manual. Volume 3. Summary authority and discipline officer proceedings 2007. Canberra: Department of Defence.
———. 2007b. Health manual. Volume 23. Human research in defence – Instructions for researchers. Canberra: Department of Defence.
———. 2008. Acknowledgment of the requirements of service in the Australian Defence Force (ADF). AD 304–1. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
Dobos, Ned. 2012. Are our soldiers assets or workers? Sydney Morning Herald, June 4.
Eyal, Nir. 2012. Informed consent. In The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2012/entries/informed-consent. Accessed 30 Sept 2019.
Farrar-Hockley. 1964. The Somme. London: B.T. Batsford.
Hackett, John Winthrop. 1962. The profession of arms: The 1962 Lees Knowles lectures given at Trinity College, Cambridge. New York: Macmillan. 1983.
Harris v KBR. 2014. US Supreme Court. http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/012015zor_bq7d.pdf. Accessed 30 Sept 2019.
Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. 1962. Philosophy of right. Translated with notes. Trans. T.M. Knox. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Kleinig, John. 2010. The nature of consent. In The ethics of consent: Theory and practice, ed. Franklin Wertheimer and Alan Miller. New York: Oxford University Press.
Lewis, Michael W. 2013. Drones: Actually the most human form of warfare ever. Washington, DC: The Atlantic.
Mileham, Patrick. 2008. Teaching military ethics in the British armed forces. In Ethics education in the military, ed. Paul Robinson, Nigel de Lee, and Don Carrick. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing.
Morrison & Foerster LLP. 2009. Morrison & Foerster files suit against CIA, and US Army on behalf of troops exposed to testing of chemical and biological weapons at Edgewood Arsenal and other top secret sites. http://edgewoodtestvets.org/press-releases/pdfs/20090107-Morrison-Files-Suit.pdf. Accessed 30 Sept 2019.
———. 2010. Morrison & Foerster secures victory for troops exposed to chemical and biological weapons testing in case against the US Government. http://edgewoodtestvets.org/press-releases/pdfs/20100120-Morrison-Secures-Victory.pdf. Accessed 30 Sept 2019.
———. 2016. Edgewood test vets. What this case is about. http://edgewoodtestvets.org. Accessed 30 Sept 2019.
Nation Health and Medical Research Council. 2018. National Statement on ethical conduct in human research. Canberra: National Health and Medical Research Council, Commonwealth Department of Health.
Orme, Major General C. W. 2011. Beyond compliance: Professionalism, trust and capability in the Australian profession of arms. In Report of the ADF personal conduct review. Canberra: Department of Defence.
Reynolds, David. 2013. The long shadow: The legacies of the great war in the twentieth century. London: Simon & Schuster.
Shaw, William H. 2016. Utilitarianism and the ethics of war. New York: Routledge.
Smith & Ors v The Ministry of Defence. 2013. UKSC 41. http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2013/41.html. Accessed 30 Sept 2019.
Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. 2013. Smith, Ellis, Allbut (and others) v the Ministry of Defence. London: Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.
Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences. 2003. The Feres doctrine. Bethesda: Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences.
US District Court. 2010. Vietnam Veterans of America v. Central Intelligence Agency, Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss and Denying Defendant’s Alternative Motion for Summary Judgement, No. C 09–0037 CW. (N.D. Cal. Jan 19, 2010). Washington, DC: US District Court.
U.S. Senate Committee on Veteran’s Affairs. 1994. Is military research hazardous to veterans’ health? Washington, DC: United States Senate.
US Supreme Court. 1950. Feres v. United States, Jefferson v. United States, United States v. Griggs. no. 340 US 135 (71 S.Ct. 153, 95 L. Ed. 152). Washington, DC: US Supreme Court.
Walzer, Michael. 1992. Just and unjust wars: A moral argument with historical illustrations. 2nd ed. New York: Basic Books.
Weiner, Robert, and Sherman, Tom. 2013. Drones spare troops, have powerful impact. San Diego Union-Tribune, 09 October, 2014.
Wyatt, C. 2013. Iraq damages cases : Supreme Court rules families can sue. London: BBC. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-22967853. Accessed 30 Sept 2019.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Coleman, N. (2020). The Impact of the Duty to Obey Orders in Relation to Medical Care in the Military. In: Messelken, D., Winkler, D. (eds) Ethics of Medical Innovation, Experimentation, and Enhancement in Military and Humanitarian Contexts. Military and Humanitarian Health Ethics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36319-2_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36319-2_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-36318-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-36319-2
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)