Perhaps I am an outlier here with respect to my view on this topic, but I don’t adhere to the apparent negative conclusions reached in this article. There is no way to adequately test medical procedures, medicines and products, utilizing human clinical trials of trauma wounds in the civilian population before use on the battlefield. The types of traumas suffered in non-combat situations would not allow for adequate sample size and proper evaluation of techniques and products of potential use to preclude potential use on the battlefield.

Having never been in combat or having to deal with combat induced traumas, one might discount my point of view as purely academic, but having been in biomedical research for 32 years and EMS for over 20 years, I have seen both my share of research and trauma. Combat medicine is unique in that traditional techniques and products can be “field trial tested” on a population of human victims that would never be obtainable in the civilian world. Many advances in emergency medicine have come directly from combat medicine. The fact that not all of the techniques and products are universally beneficially does not diminish the contributions that have been successfully made and yes, improved over time.

The ethical argument, that the military personal should not be guinea pigs is valid. However, all medical procedures, medicines and products are sooner or later “tested” on the greater population where on occasion the negative attributes are made manifest due to the larger sample size of patients. Just think of how many medicines, medical procedures and products have been recalled, placed on hold and the like. Why would combat medicine be any different?

Just my 2 cents-

(Glock-A-Roo I am not referencing your posting, it just happened to be last)

Pete