“I will be testifying to the illegal use of Afghan corpses for medical "practice," which I witnessed while serving as a medic in Afghanistan.”Well, that did not come to pass. Read the post, and especially the comments that follow which include a reply from O'Brien himself, and the responces he received and in particular that from Namedic (John "Doc" Boyle), a combat medic in Vietnam - and you will see why in all likelihood he did not testify.
At one point, O'Brien said:
If you admitted a family member to a hospital, and that relative sadly passed on, how would you feel if you discovered that the body had been used as a teaching tool? Without consent? Can anyone on this site honestly tell me they wouldn't be outraged if it became known that we were using the corpses of American soldiers this way?It is absolutely routine for surgeries to be used as training, which is why doctors in training will assist the more experienced surgeons, to precisely get training not otherwise available. And in cases where a patient dies on the table, of course there is likely to be attempt to both be sure of why that happened and instruct those present who may well need that information later to save lives, even if that means touching the deceased, which is exactly what has O'Brien riled up.
The crime he was going to testify to was military surgeons letting medics touch the heart muscle of a deceased patient. For combat medics to recognize that muscle by touch can be a future life saver, and was not disrespectful to the corpse.
As John "Doc" Boyle asked:
For starters, so what if a doctor in an OR or surgery asked staff to examine post mortem remains for purposes of an otherwise unavailable – and extremely valuable - training experience?Scratch another IVAW claim of American crimes and atrocities which can be chalked up to American military medical staff taking the opportunity to instruct others in a way that may someday save the life of one of our troops, an Afghan civilian, adult or child, or maybe even a wounded enemy!
Then too, it might also have been Namedic's final comment and challenge to O'Brien:
From Perry O’Brien’s entry in “Member Profiles” on the IVAW website:
“I felt like a terrorist myself for being complicit in the illegal detainment, torture, and murder of thousands of innocent civilians.”
Say W H A T??
And you can back this up, right?
2 comments:
I really feel that going through every member of IVAW who did not testify is pretty silly: however, I have to step in on this one. Perry O'Brien gave as much of his time as would have been appropriate during a military op. He simply did not have time to appear on a panel, because he was helping to facilitate everyone else appearing on panels. Like the picture of a good NCO, he made everything happen without having the need to call attention to himself-because it wasn't about him, it was about the testimony. I'm sure he would have liked to have been on a panel as well-but that was not possible for everyone given logistical concerns.
I guess any excuse will do.
His previous statements are a matter of public record anyway.
Post a Comment