Talk:Combat medical technician

Fair use rationale for Image:Medics.jpg

Image:Medics.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Are these medics non-combatants?

The Geneva Conventions state that non-combatant medical personnel (and chaplains), are supposed to be protected from hostilities, even on the battlefield, provided they fulfill certain conditions.

Most civilians assume all medics on the battlefield are non-combatants, protected by the Geneva Conventions -- like in the movies we have seen about World War 2. But this is not necessarily true. Armies are free to field soldiers who are cross-trained so they can serve as either soldiers or medics, depending on demand.

If I am not mistaken the USA no longer fields non-combatant medics.

This article should make clear whether the Combat Medical Technician in UK service is a non-combatant. RAMC CMTs are all Non Combatants. In order to be a non-combatant a medic is supposed to wear prominent Red Cross (or equivalent) markings. They are not allowed to engage in hostilities, althou they are are allowed to carry a side-arm. Their side-arm is supposed to be used solely for self-defense. Why would they need a side-arm, for self-defense, when any lawful on the other side would know better than to fire on them? As in Afganistan they are fighting against people who do not adhere to theGeneva Convention, so the weapon of choice for a CMT is the SA80 rifle for the defence of themselves and there casualties. Well, they could encounter deserters, or civilian looters, who posed a threat to their safety, or the safety of their patients.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 12:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Combat Medical Technician. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060605103445/http://www.army.mod.uk/medical/royal_army_medical_corps/index.htm to http://www.army.mod.uk/medical/royal_army_medical_corps/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:14, 19 September 2017 (UTC)