Search

Data from recent wars indicate that a wounded Marine had a 20% lower risk of dying than an Army soldier. Possible reasons for this difference are (1) Navy care is superior, (2) soldiers sustained more severe wounds, and (3) the services count casualties differently. Injury severity was measured in random samples of Marines and soldiers that were selected from the Wound Data and Munitions Effectiveness Team database. There was no difference in the lethality of injury and the prevalence of lifesaving first aid. Wounded Marines were more likely to wear protective vests, and this decreased Marine mortality in Vietnam. Hospitalized Marines had lower Injury Severity Scores and were less likely to be returned to duty without first being admitted to a medical treatment facility. Lower Marine combat mortality is primarily the result of the fact that a Marine with a minor soft tissue wound was more likely to be hospitalized than was a soldier with a similar injury.

The military surgery experience of the past several centuries has been an important determinant of the evolution of the clinical management of penetrating thoracic trauma. The major management problems fall into two main categories: acute, life-threatening conditions such as open pneumothorax and exsanguinating hemorrhage, and chronic conditions such as clotted hemothorax, empyema, and fibrothorax. Better treatment and prevention of the latter has greatly reduced morbidity. Although hospital mortality has fallen by a factor of ten since the middle of the nineteenth century, the total mortality caused by penetrating thoracic trauma has undergone less change.

Results of medical treatment are notoriously poor in patients with pending litigation after personal injury or disability claims, and for those covered by workers' compensation programs. Although some instances of overt malingering are documented by surveillance videos, most exaggerated illness behavior in compensation situations takes place because of a combination of suggestion, somatization, and rationalization. A distorted sense of justice, victim status, and entitlement may further the exaggerated sick role. Adversarial administrative and legal systems challenging the claimant to prove repeatedly he or she is permanently ill harden the conviction of illness and the individual's defense of the claim. Unfortunately, after advocating for one's injury before a sometimes doubting public for the several years required to resolve such claims, care eliciting behavior too often remains permanent. Because any improvement in the claimant's health condition may result in denial of disability status in the future, the claimant is compelled to guard against getting well and is left with no honorable way to recover from illness. Financial reward for illness thus functions as a powerful nocebo, a nonspecific force creating and exacerbating illness. Solutions require recognition that judging disability and work incapacity in others is an unscientific process and that adversarial systems rewarding permanent illness or injury, particularly self reported pain, are often permanently harmful. The remainder of the solution must be political.

The present trend in managed care has meant downsizing expectations concerning the availability of support for resuscitation research. This trend applies to funding possibilities from industry, governmental agencies, and nongovernmental agencies (Table 1). There will be increasing barriers to making innovations. Truth, science, and good patient care alone will not make potential donors give grants. Investigators must also understand the potential donors' expectations and be persuasive. "Delight your donor". Industries' concerns include intellectual property rights and publications. The National Institutes of Health, recently favoring molecular biology over lifesaving therapies or integrated physiologic research, is an anomaly. The current peer review system propagates itself without having advocates for resuscitation research. This system has become a self-fulfilling prophecy. The American Heart Association is only recently, after 30 yrs of educational activities concerning cardiopulmonary resuscitation, considering putting some basic research money into resuscitation research. In university hospitals, where clinical departments have made significant contributions to innovative, clinically relevant life-support research, funded with incomes from patient care, the sky is beginning to fall. Resuscitation researchers need persuasive advocates with clout and hard data to convince funding agencies to give support to multilevel research and development in areas of pathophysiology and reversibility of terminal states and clinical death--to give these topics a higher priority than is currently available.

The medical effects of weapons used in modern conventional warfare are, overwhelmingly, penetrating. Fragments from explosive munitions such as shells, rockets, and grenades are the predominate source of missiles, especially in high-intensity war. Bullets from assault rifles and machine guns cause fewer casualties, except in counterinsurgency operations. The threat from penetrating missiles depends upon the part of the body that is struck and, to a lesser extent, upon the physical characteristics of the missile. The missile's mass and velocity determine its potential to do physical damage, but the extent to which this potential is realized depends upon diverse factors such as shape, construction, and stability. The American experience in the wars of this century indicate that approximately 20%-25% of all casualties died on the battlefield and are therefore classified as killed in action. Approximately 3%-5% die while receiving care, and thus are classified as died of wounds. Wounds of the brain or heart and great vessels are the most common causes of death. Prevention of sepsis in soft-tissue and orthopedic wounds is the major medical treatment problem in survivors. Since it determines the quality and quantity of combat casualty care, the single most important factor determining mortality or morbidity for combat casualties is the tactical situation.

Events such as the Falklands War and naval actions in the Persian Gulf have emphasized the unique nature of battle casualty care on warships. The purpose of this paper is to describe two actions which illustrate the problems that a medical officer may confront when a warship sustains battle damage: that of the USS Franklin in March 1945 and that of the USS Stark in May 1987. Although neither ship was sunk, damage was severe and about one-quarter of each ship's crew became casualties. More than three-quarters of the casualties were killed, death being due to blast, fire and smoke inhalation.