Yuxuan Yang

Medical professionals have been playing an important and unique role in United Nations’ (UN) Peacekeeping Operations. They come from different countries around the world, serving people with diverse religious, cultural, and educational backgrounds. To guide their activities, the UN formulated and distributed the Medical Support Manual, including the ethical code for medical practitioners. Furthermore, in addition to their national codes of ethics, during the services in the United Nations, all physicians and United Nations staff or volunteer physicians, shall be guided by and consistent with the International Code of Ethics for Occupational Health Professionals and the International Code of Medical Ethics. As peacekeepers, medical professionals follow three basic principles: consent of the parties, impartiality, and non-use of force, which continue to set UN peacekeeping operations apart as a tool for maintaining international peace and security for decades. Impartiality had been a key code for UN medical professionals’ practices but was misunderstood for over four decades until 2000. Years ago, the UN made a clear definition of “impartiality,” which was considered crucial to maintaining the consent and cooperation of the main parties. With this change, UN peacekeepers should be impartial in their dealings with the parties to the conflict but not neutral in the execution of their mandate. Affected by this change, all the peacekeepers have been facing new challenges. Some cases are discussed to analyze the dilemma of medical professionals for peacekeeping missions in this chapter.

In this volume, the concept of "medical neutrality," which states that medical services should not be interfered with during armed conflicts and other emergencies, is challenged based on the experience and expertise of the authors, who come from diverse military, humanitarian, and academic backgrounds. The principle of medical neutrality is grounded in International Humanitarian Law as well as in Human Rights Law and it can be justified by ethical rationales such as the principle of Humanity and ordinary medical ethics. Health workers often understand medical neutrality as an obligation not to engage in anything else other than medical outcomes. In this book, a variety of problems and ethical issues in the application of medical neutrality in the professional practice of healthcare personnel are analyzed. The contributors expand the debate around “medical neutrality” and aim at better-informing policy and operational decisions regarding the application of medical ethics, the protection of medical missions in conflict, and the training of healthcare professionals to operate ethically and safely in volatile environments. The volume is of great interest to academics, practitioners, policymakers, and students who are looking for analyses and guidance regarding medical neutrality.