BMJ 1999;319:410-412 ( 14 August )

Papers

Effect of type and transfer of conventional weapons on civilian injuries: retrospective analysis of prospective data from Red Cross hospitals

Editorial by Smith

Robin M Coupland, surgeon,  Hans O Samnegaard, surgeon. 

Unit of the Chief Medical Officer, International Committee of the Red Cross, 19 avenue de la Paix, 1202 Geneva, Switzerland

Correspondence to: Mr Coupland rcoupland{at}icrc.org

Objective: To examine the link between different weapons used in modern wars and their potential to injury civilians.
Design: Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data about hospital admissions.
Setting: Hospitals of the International Committee of the Red Cross.
Subjects: 18 877 people wounded by bullets, fragmentation munitions, or mines. Of these, 2012 had been admitted to the hospital in Kabul within six hours of injury.
Main outcome measures: Age and sex of wounded people according to cause of injury and whether they were civilians (women and girls, boys under 16 years old, or men of 50 or more).
Results: 18.7% of those injured by bullets, 34.1% of those injured by fragments, and 30.8% of those injured by mines were civilians. Of those admitted to the Red Cross hospital in Kabul within six hours of injury, 39.1% of those injured by bullets, 60.6% of those injured by fragments, and 55.0% of those injured by mines were civilians.
Conclusions: The proportion of civilians injured differs between weapon systems. The higher proportion injured by fragments and mines is explicable in terms of the military efficiency of weapons, the distance between user and victim, and the effect that the kind of weapon has on the psychology of the user.

Key messages During war, mines and fragmenting munitions (mortars, bombs, and shells) are more likely than bullets to injure civilians Civilians in a city under siege are particularly at risk of being injured by weapons whose users are not able to see the victim The inherent nature of weapons may be a factor in determining whether civilians are killed or injured There is a need for greater respect for the Fourth Geneva Convention and for greater controls on weapons being transferred to untrained and undisciplined forces

---

© BMJ 1999
CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    StumbleUpon    Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Articles

As military efficiency of weapons increases, so does their likelihood of injuring civilians
BMJ 1999 319: 0. [Full Text]

Who gets hurt by all these weapons?

Chris Smith
BMJ 1999 319: 395. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Helweg-Larsen, K., Abdel-Jabbar Al-Qadi, A. H., Al-Jabriri, J., Bronnum-Hansen, H. (2004). Systematic medical data collection of intentional injuries during armed conflicts: a pilot study conducted in West Bank, Palestine. Scand J Public Health 32: 17-23 [Abstract]  
• Bilukha, O. O., Brennan, M., Woodruff, B. A. (2003). Death and Injury From Landmines and Unexploded Ordnance in Afghanistan. JAMA 290: 650-653 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Coupland, R. M (1999). The effects of weapons and the Solferino cycle. BMJ 319: 864-865 [Full text]  
• Leaning, J. (1999). Medicine and international humanitarian law. BMJ 319: 393-394 [Full text]  
• Smith, C. (1999). Who gets hurt by all these weapons?. BMJ 319: 395-395 [Full text]  
• Meddings, D. R, O'Connor, S. M (1999). Circumstances around weapon injury in Cambodia after departure of a peacekeeping force: prospective cohort study. BMJ 319: 412-415 [Abstract] [Full text]  

Online poll

Find out more >>