As a doctor, one stands between individual conscience, national law, international law and the brutal reality of power. This tension becomes sharper in a state of defence, when legislation assigns priorities to medical action.
1. Medical conscience
- Medical professional ethics and the Hippocratic tradition bind the doctor to the welfare of the patient and to conscience.
- In peacetime, medical urgency alone should decide: triage according to severity, not status or uniform.
- Freedom of conscience is constitutionally protected.
2. National law
- In a state of defence, the state may pass laws restricting basic rights.
- Emergency and civil-protection rules may require doctors to give priority to soldiers.
- The doctor’s conscience can thus be overlaid by the state’s demand to preserve the operational capacity of the armed forces.
3. International law
- Under the Geneva Conventions, all wounded people must be treated without discrimination based on status.
- The standard is medical urgency, not whether someone is a soldier or a civilian.
- Blanket priority for soldiers therefore conflicts with humanitarian law.
- A doctor cannot later rely solely on superior orders; individual responsibility remains.
4. Historical analogy: the Berlin Wall guards
East German border guards relied on the law then in force, including orders to shoot at the Berlin Wall. After reunification, courts held that grave injustice cannot become justice merely because it was written into law. Higher principles such as human dignity stood above national orders.
The parallel for doctors is uncomfortable: even if a state orders priority for soldiers, personal responsibility remains. A doctor who deliberately disadvantages civilians may violate higher law and cannot assume that “I followed orders” will later be enough.
5. The position of the stronger
Beyond conscience, national law and international law lies a fourth level: power. In peace, international law may offer orientation. In war, the stronger side often decides how it is interpreted.
- Trials of defeated regimes punish the crimes of the losers, while actions of the victors may remain unexamined.
- Great powers repeatedly ignore international law while smaller states are measured against it.
For doctors this means that later judgment may depend not only on law, but also on whether their state won or lost. The power of the stronger is therefore a brutal but real factor in the conflict between law and conscience.
6. Conclusion
- In peace, conscience and equal treatment should apply without restriction.
- In a state of defence, national law may demand priority for soldiers.
- Under humanitarian law, such priority remains questionable and personal responsibility continues.
- Above all stands power: victors and defeated parties often determine guilt and justification.
The historical experience of the Wall guards shows that a state can legalise conduct without making it just. Yet whether higher law is actually enforced is often decided by power. For the doctor, one reliable authority remains: one’s own conscience. It is the only thing neither victor nor defeated side can take away.
