{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018036072144288578, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.091463414634147, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Military necessity versus the protection of the wounded and sick: a critical balance.

A realistic approach to humanitarian principles in the field of the Law of Armed Conflict should take into account "military necessity." Does military necessity also play a role in the medical field? The provisions regarding the treatment of the wounded and sick seem definite because they are at the core of International Humanitarian Law. The conduct of military medical personnel, the attention to be paid to the wounded and sick, as well as to medical equipment or facilities are provisions that derive from unyielding principles of care, respect, protection, and equality of treatment. To what extent may this analysis be considered as contrary to the common realism of LOAC? How far should medical personnel be requested to implement the Geneva standards in any circumstance? In fact, unless otherwise specified, military necessity can never lead to a reduction in these standards in the course of battle.