- Robin M Coupland, surgeona
- a Health Operations Division, International Committee of the Red Cross, 1202 Geneva, Switzerland
Weapons: a surgeon's view
Buried or “point detonating” antipersonnel mines are the only conventional weapons which cause specific and severe injury resulting in specific and permanent disability. The treatment of the injury requires, on average, twice as many operations and four times as many blood transfusions as injury from other weapons. This is a surgeon's view.
Summary points
Antipersonnel mines are an example of weapons that cause more injury than is necessary militarily to disable a soldier
The Geneva Conventions prohibit the use of weapons that cause “superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering”
The SirUS project, run by the International Committee of the Red Cross, uses the nature of the injury it causes to deem a weapon illegal
Individual doctors and medical organisations are asked to endorse the SIrUS project
There was no particular point at which I became interested in the global problem of antipersonnel mines: I was just confronted with people injured by mines. From 1987 to 1991 I worked in hospitals set up by the International Committee of the Red Cross on the borders of Afghanistan and Cambodia, two of the most heavily mined countries in the world. During those last years of the cold war the full extent of the impact of mines on whole societies was yet unknown. New international legislation to ban the devices was not being discussed; I simply found myself dreading the radio call announcing that another mine injured person was on his or her way to hospital. The dread was generated by the knowledge that my team would be faced with a long and difficult operation which entailed excising large amounts of damaged tissue or amputating a limb. This quickly turned into abhorrence for the weapons which caused such injury as a function of their design. In brief, my own reason for finding these weapons abhorrent was the …
Sign in
Personal subscribers, sign in here:
Article access
Article access for 1 day
Purchase this article for £20 $30 €32*
The PDF version can be downloaded as your personal record
CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Reddit
Technorati
Twitter
Stumbleupon
Rapid responses
Latest Responses
The decline in the breast cancer incidence is 1.2% and it is not significant.
Published 10 February 2012
'twas ever thus
Published 10 February 2012
The value of historic human remains
Published 10 February 2012
In Praise of British Literature
Published 10 February 2012
Is real shared decision making possible?
Published 10 February 2012
Most responses
Does anyone understand the government’s plan for the NHS? (17 responses)
Published 17 Jan 2012
Bad medicine: medical nutrition (15 responses)
Published 18 Jan 2012
Shared decision making: really putting patients at the centre of healthcare (7 responses)
Published 27 Jan 2012
Why legislation is necessary for my health reforms (7 responses)
Published 1 Feb 2012
Search for evidence goes on (5 responses)
Published 17 Jan 2012