The politics of war

We do not agree that war is a subject unconnected with medicine. Clearly, the implications of military action — and inaction — for human health are profound. The question of whether the war in Iraq was “just” has given rise to a good deal of agonized debate, and people of conscience have argued strenuously on both sides. In the weeks leading up to the war, risk calulations of various kinds, including the competing “body counts” suggested by Jason Ford, weighed heavily on many people's minds. Our editorial1 focused on some of the risks posed by unilateral military action, particularly the potential damage to the moral authority of the United Nations and to the capacity of international agencies to continue to work effectively. Some of our readers work with such organizations in Canada and abroad.

With respect to John Rapin's charge that we are amateur commentators, we are pleased to agree. It is a characteristic of healthy democracies that the ethical scrutiny of political and military decisions is not confined to designated experts. That being said, the medical profession can claim expertise with respect to health. It would be remiss, therefore, for medical commentators not to encourage consideration of the health implications of war.

Our concern about the impact of unilateral military action on the structures of international cooperation is a matter of principle that has not been altered by the outcome of the war, even assuming this outcome to be as uncomplicated as Brad Bryan's letter implies. In any event, we would take no satisfaction in seeing any worst-case scenarios come true.

John Hoey Anne Marie Todkill CMAJ