Responses

Injury profile suffered by targets of antipersonnel improvised explosive devices: prospective cohort study
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    Important issues for casualty trauma care and an ethical plea

    The authors accomplish to objectify the experiences of military surgeons collected in current military conflicts by this scientific study and manage to give practical guidelines for the treatment of the sustained injuries.

    Especially the significance of multiple amputations and perineal injuries as indicators of more severe injuries (e.g. pelvic fractures) due to a massive transfer of energy is highlighted. These patients are at a higher risk of exsanguination and infection. First important measures can be applied in the field by the attending medic: the liberal use of tourniquets and pelvic binders cannot be stressed enough. A finding that even has impact on the civilian sector. With an increase of terroristic attacks we can implement the knowledge which was won in military conflicts.

    Moreover we may not neglect the effects of these injuries onto the whole life of the patients which are mostly young men. A lot of subsequent problems have to be expected that represent major challenges for both the patients and the societies. Especially as a result of ageing many patients will compensate their lost limbs to a lesser extent over time.

    Beyond the medical findings this paper stands out especially because of its ethical assessment of AP-IED’s. It was utterly justified to outlaw the use of APM’s, in today’s conflicts APM’s only play a minor role. A similar process concerning the AP-IED’s is extremely desirable which even have more gruesome effects as shown...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Thanks for your Comments related to International Humanitarian Law

    Thanks for your comments and I agree it is difficult to address Rule 70 in countries who do not subscribe to the conventions. However this does not negate the need for continued efforts to add AP-IEDs to the list of weapons that cause excessive injury or suffering that is disproportionate to the military advantage sought by their use, and only by only by documenting and publishing these injury patterns can we offer the necessary evidence. The data also suggests the indiscriminate nature of this weapon - in that children were part of the co-hort – and this also needed to be identified.

    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    International Humanitarian Law: Rule 70

    The authors of this article claim that they document this weapon to cause "superfluous injury and unnecessary suffering". This is terminology that refers to International Humanitarian Law. The International Committee of the Red Cross have catalogued these laws. Rule 70 states that "the use of means and methods of warfare which are of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering is prohibited."(1) Some would say that there is no point to pursuing this legal angle because those who use IEDs tend not to be among those who sign on to the Geneva conventions. However International Humanitarian Law is considered to be customary and therefore applicable to every human being regardless of the law, or absence of law, in their own country.

    (1) https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul_rule70

    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.