Given the ongoing conflicts around the world and reports of attacks on medical facilities and medical teams, we asked over 2,300 physicians worldwide about their concerns for their colleagues’ safety. Explore the latest M3 Pulse survey results on medical neutrality in conflict zones and concerns over whether international humanitarian law is being respected.
Let us know what your concerns are around medical neutrality as a healthcare provider in the comments section below.
Medical neutrality is a cornerstone of international humanitarian law, ensuring that healthcare workers, facilities, and patients are protected during armed conflict. Enshrined in the Geneva Conventions, it requires all parties to a conflict to respect and safeguard medical personnel, transport, and infrastructure, regardless of political or military alignment. Its purpose is simple yet vital: to preserve access to care for civilians and combatants alike, even in the most volatile environments.
In practice, medical neutrality in conflict zones is essential to maintaining basic health services when local systems are collapsing under the pressures of war. Hospitals, clinics, and field units provide critical interventions such as emergency surgery, maternal care, and treatment for communicable diseases. Without legal protections, these services become vulnerable to attack, looting, or misuse, directly endangering lives and undermining humanitarian aid.
These protections are not only about shielding healthcare workers from physical harm. They also uphold the ethical obligation of the medical profession to treat all in need, free from intimidation or interference.
When international humanitarian law protecting healthcare workers is respected, it enables impartial, life-saving care to continue despite the chaos of war. When it is ignored, the consequences ripple far beyond the battlefield, deepening civilian suffering for years to come.
Medical Neutrality in Conflict Zones: Documented Attacks on Healthcare Workers
In 2024, humanitarian and healthcare professionals faced unprecedented risks. The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) reported that 281 aid workers were killed across 19 countries, making it the deadliest year on record.* Many of these deaths occurred in Gaza, where healthcare workers, hospitals, and clinics were severely affected by ongoing hostilities.
On April 1, 2024, seven aid workers from World Central Kitchen (WCK) were killed in a drone strike in Deir Al-Balah, Gaza. The organisation stated that it had coordinated its movements with military authorities, raising global concern about the safety of humanitarian operations.*
The World Health Organization (WHO) documented 654 attacks on health facilities in Gaza between late 2023 and January 2025, along with the deaths of over 1,050 medical personnel, many while performing their duties.* These figures illustrate the scale of the challenge to the protection of healthcare workers in war.
While international humanitarian law protecting healthcare workers is clear in its legal framework, applying it in modern warfare is complex. In some cases, disputes arise over whether medical facilities are being used for military purposes, with claims and counterclaims shaping public perception and influencing operational decisions.
The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) notes that limited access for neutral observers, contested narratives, and misinformation make it difficult to verify incidents and determine accountability.
Political sensitivities can also affect the investigation process, and responses to confirmed violations may vary widely. These factors contribute to ongoing debates within the international community about how best to uphold the protection of healthcare workers in war under the realities of contemporary armed conflict.
Global Survey Results: Concern Among Physicians on Medical Neutrality
To better understand the medical community’s perspective on medical neutrality in conflict zones, we surveyed 2,375 physicians worldwide in our latest M3 Pulse.
For many medical professionals, the principle of medical neutrality is not an abstract legal concept but a core ethical standard. Regardless of geography or specialty, physicians recognise the importance of safeguarding healthcare workers and facilities in times of conflict. However, their personal views on how well these protections are upheld can vary based on experience, proximity to conflict zones, and the information sources they rely on.
Physicians who have worked in or near conflict areas may have first hand exposure to the risks faced by colleagues on the ground, shaping a more urgent sense of concern. Others may engage with the topic primarily through professional networks, media coverage, or humanitarian reports, which can still influence perceptions but from a greater distance.
We asked our panel members worldwide: “Given the ongoing conflicts around the world, how concerned are you that international war laws are failing to protect healthcare workers and medical facilities in conflict zones?”
Globally, 66% of physicians were “extremely” or “very” concerned, suggesting that a large share of the medical community perceives notable risks to the protection of healthcare workers in war.
At the same time, nearly one-third expressed moderate or low concern, reflecting differing assessments of how effectively international humanitarian law protecting healthcare workers is being upheld.
*Please select your language
/>
M3 Pulse is a one-question online survey we conduct every month with our M3 panel members. It´s a fun and easy way to share your opinions about trending healthcare topics, like the shortage of physicians, with healthcare professionals worldwide. If you want to participate in this month´s M3 Pulse, register and join the M3 panel today.
These results highlight that while concern about medical neutrality and the protection of healthcare workers in war is widespread, perspectives vary, reflecting differences in professional experience, geographic proximity to conflict zones, and interpretation of available information.
The Role of International Organisations in Medical Neutrality
International organisations play a critical role in upholding medical neutrality during armed conflicts. Groups such as the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), World Health Organization (WHO), and Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) work to ensure that the protections outlined in international humanitarian law and the Geneva Conventions are respected. These legal frameworks set clear obligations for all parties in war to safeguard hospitals, clinics, and healthcare personnel.
In practice, these organisations monitor and document incidents, including attacks on medical facilities in war zones, and advocate for accountability when breaches occur. Their reports provide vital evidence to the international community, supporting diplomatic engagement and, in some cases, legal proceedings. They also provide training for military and medical personnel to reinforce the importance of protecting healthcare workers in war and maintaining impartial access to care.
In many conflict zones, international organisations are among the few actors able to deliver medical supplies, evacuate patients, and support overstretched local staff. By promoting medical neutrality in conflict zones, they help sustain healthcare systems under extreme pressure and keep attention focused on the humanitarian principles that protect both civilians and those who care for them during armed conflicts.
What are your views on medical neutrality as a healthcare worker? Do you think international humanitarian law is being respected today? Please share your thoughts in the comments section.
Join the M3 Panel
Would you like to be rewarded for your medical expertise? Join M3 today and share your opinion
More M3 Pulse:
Digital Twins in Healthcare
Digital twin technology is becoming a practical reality in modern healthcare.
Discover how likely clinicians are to adopt digital twin technology.
Your First Medical Case Paper: A Moment of Reflection
In our latest M3 Pulse, we explore how reflective practice shapes more thoughtful, well-rounded doctors by asking our panel to look back on their first medical case paper and what it taught them.
