Military physicians’ ethical experience and professional identity: a Canadian perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Military physicians can experience ethical tensions and encounter important dilemmas when acting at the same time as healers, soldiers and humanitarians. In the literature, these are often presented as the result of pressures, real or perceived, from the military institution or role and obligation conflicts that can divert physicians from their primary duty towards their patients. In this article, I present the ethical experiences of 14 Canadian military physicians who participated in operational missions, particularly in Afghanistan. Interestingly, although some dilemmas discussed in the academic literature were raised by Canadian physicians, ethical tensions were less frequent and numerous than what might have been expected. Instead, what emerged were distinctions between the ethical experiences of physicians: generalists experienced more frequent and different ethical challenges than specialists, and these also varied by context, that is, garrison versus on deployment. The main dilemmas during deployment were similar to those encountered by humanitarian physicians and concerned inequalities in the provision of care between coalition soldiers and Afghans (soldiers and civilians), as well as the lack of resources. Surprisingly, participants were evenly divided with regards to how they perceived their professional identity: one group clearly prioritised the medical profession (ie, doctor first and foremost), while the other group identified themselves as military physicians, but without prioritising one profession over the other.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".