The Norwegian Mobile Army Surgical Hospital in the Korean War (1951-1954): Military Hospital or Humanitarian "Sanctuary?"

IF 0.1 Q4 HISTORY NURSING HISTORY REVIEW Pub Date : 2020-09-01 DOI:10.1891/1062-8061.28.93
Jan-Thore Lockertsen, Åshild Fause, Christine E Hallett
{"title":"The Norwegian Mobile Army Surgical Hospital in the Korean War (1951-1954): Military Hospital or Humanitarian \"Sanctuary?\"","authors":"Jan-Thore Lockertsen, Åshild Fause, Christine E Hallett","doi":"10.1891/1062-8061.28.93","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>During the Korean War (1950-1953) the Norwegian government sent a mobile army surgical hospital (MASH) to support the efforts of the United Nations (UN) Army. From the first, its status was ambiguous. The US-led military medical services believed that the \"Norwegian Mobile Army Surgical Hospital\" (NORMASH) was no different from any other MASH; but both its originators and its staff regarded it as a vehicle for humanitarian aid. Members of the hospital soon recognized that their status in the war zone was primarily that of a military field hospital. Yet they insisted on providing essential medical care to the local civilian population as well as trauma care to UN soldiers and prisoners of war. The ambiguities that arose from the dual mission of NORMASH are explored in this article, which pays particular attention to the experiences of nurses, as expressed in three types of source: their contemporary letters to their Matron-in-Chief; a report written by one nurse shortly after the war; and a series of oral history interviews conducted approximately 60 years later. The article concludes that the nurses of NORMASH experienced no real role-conflict. They viewed it as natural that they should offer their services to both military and civilian casualties according to need, and they experienced a sense of satisfaction from their work with both types of patient. Ultimately, the experience of Norwegian nurses in Korea illustrates the powerful sense of personal agency that could be experienced by nurses in forward field hospitals, where political decision-making did not impinge too forcefully on their clinical and ethical judgment as clinicians.</p>","PeriodicalId":42438,"journal":{"name":"NURSING HISTORY REVIEW","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"NURSING HISTORY REVIEW","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1891/1062-8061.28.93","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

During the Korean War (1950-1953) the Norwegian government sent a mobile army surgical hospital (MASH) to support the efforts of the United Nations (UN) Army. From the first, its status was ambiguous. The US-led military medical services believed that the "Norwegian Mobile Army Surgical Hospital" (NORMASH) was no different from any other MASH; but both its originators and its staff regarded it as a vehicle for humanitarian aid. Members of the hospital soon recognized that their status in the war zone was primarily that of a military field hospital. Yet they insisted on providing essential medical care to the local civilian population as well as trauma care to UN soldiers and prisoners of war. The ambiguities that arose from the dual mission of NORMASH are explored in this article, which pays particular attention to the experiences of nurses, as expressed in three types of source: their contemporary letters to their Matron-in-Chief; a report written by one nurse shortly after the war; and a series of oral history interviews conducted approximately 60 years later. The article concludes that the nurses of NORMASH experienced no real role-conflict. They viewed it as natural that they should offer their services to both military and civilian casualties according to need, and they experienced a sense of satisfaction from their work with both types of patient. Ultimately, the experience of Norwegian nurses in Korea illustrates the powerful sense of personal agency that could be experienced by nurses in forward field hospitals, where political decision-making did not impinge too forcefully on their clinical and ethical judgment as clinicians.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
朝鲜战争中的挪威机动陆军外科医院(1951–1954):军事医院还是人道主义“避难所?”
朝鲜战争(1950-1953 年)期间,挪威政府派遣了一支流动陆军外科医院(MASH),以支持联合国(UN)军队的工作。从一开始,该医院的地位就很模糊。以美国为首的军事医疗部门认为,"挪威流动陆军外科医院"(NORMASH)与其他流动陆军外科医院并无区别;但医院的创建者和工作人员都将其视为人道主义援助的工具。医院成员很快认识到,他们在战区的地位主要是一个军事野战医院。但他们坚持为当地平民提供必要的医疗服务,并为联合国士兵和战俘提供创伤护理。本文探讨了 NORMASH 的双重使命所产生的模糊性,并特别关注了护士们的经历,这些经历体现在三类资料中:她们写给总护士长的当代信件;一名护士在战后不久撰写的报告;以及约 60 年后进行的一系列口述历史访谈。文章的结论是,NORMASH 的护士们没有经历过真正的角色冲突。她们认为,根据需要为军人和平民伤员提供服务是理所当然的,而且她们从与两类病人的合作中都获得了满足感。归根结底,挪威护士在朝鲜的经历说明,在前方战地医院工作的护士可以体验到强烈的个人能动性,因为在那里,政治决策不会对她们作为临床医生的临床和伦理判断产生太大的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Nursing History Review, an annual peer-reviewed publication, is a showcase for the most significant current research on nursing and health care history. Contributors include national and international scholars representing many different disciplinary backgrounds. Regular sections include scholarly articles, reviews of the best books on nursing and abstracts of new doctoral dissertations and health care history, and invited commentaries. Historians, researchers, and individuals fascinated with the rich field of nursing will find this an important resource.
期刊最新文献
Nursing History Digitization Project: Nursing Education in Nova Scotia. Pandemic, Creating a Usable Past: Epidemic History, COVID-19, and the Future of Health and Pandemic Histories. Guidelines for Contributors. Editor's Note. Introduction.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1