One profession in which ethical dilemmas are encountered is in the military field.

The

examined literature on ethics seem to agree that there are myriad unethical practices during war

time. To begin with, Vaidya and Bobdey (2020) claim that military medical personnel function

via two opposing ethical frameworks that lead them to possess two different sensations of

loyalty; whereby they have to be loyal to both their country and their profession because they

represent a soldier and a medic at the same time which represents dual loyalty. To elaborate, as

medical personnel, military medics have to provide medical services to people on the battlefield

regardless of whether they are a friend or a foe; however, as military personnel they have to carry

out their military operation in service of their own country, but to the detriment of their enemies

(Vaidya and Bobdey, 2021). Similarly, Morgan et al. (2020) report that even though

interrogation techniques may offer tactical advantages on the battlefield, it is still better not to

implement them due to the intense magnitude of stress through which the interrogator have to go

through in order to potentially obtain intel. To elaborate Morgan et al. (2020) report that

interrogators apply suggestibility –which is a method devised to instill false beliefs into

individuals, and compliance which is ordering people do what they are asked to do in order to

impose more stress on their hostages. To clarify, Morgan et al. (2020) points out that the intel

obtained through interrogation might be even false because there is no practical way to know if

the hostage disclosed false information to escape punishment. In addition, Vaidya and Bobdey

(2020) indicate that the World Medical Organization proposed the declarations of Tokyo (1975)

which entails regarding inhumane activates and torture, including those used as interrogation

techniques. However, Morgan et al (2020) posit that some researchers believe that interrogation
techniques may be considered ethical because its benefits exceeds its harms which means that it

provides the most benefit for the most amount of people based on a utilitarian ethical framework.

Opposingly, there are multiple declarations that are concerned with ethical dilemmas on the

battlefield such as the Declaration of Taipa regarding health data, and bio banks as well as the

Declaration of Malta (1991-1992) regarding famine, claim Vaidya and Bobdey. Moreover, The

Geneva and International Red Cross Conventions establish the rules which military medics

should abide by when operating which are that they should remain independent, provide medical

services to anyone on the battlefield, allocate care based on level of need, and not use civilians

for military operations (Vaidya & Bobdey, 2020). Thus, the examined research may contribute to

resolving military ethical dilemmas.

Vaidya and Bobdey (2020) ‘s article established credibility. The review features

innumerable set of laws; Humanitarian Laws, Geneva Convention Law, and Waging Laws. The

existence of these laws lends credibility to the authors’ claims because they were supported by

legal authorities. This captivates the audiences’ attention because it generates confidence in the

validity of the content and material. In other words, relying on different law depicts that the

review was under proper and legal research which makes it reliable. In addition, the study

includes numerous academic references. Therefore, this demonstrates that it has been thoroughly

investigated and discussed in a way that makes a major contribution to the existing literature. In

other words, by providing references, the authors offer support for the assertions made in the

research. Hence, the authors can convince the reader that they are knowledgeable about the

subject at hand by quoting professionals in their industry. On the other hand, Vaidya and Bobdey

(2021)’s research contains a weakness that it lacks a counterargument. The authors mentioned

nothing about the impact of interrogation stress on civilians, making the statistics biased. Also,
the authors could argue that hostile forces cannot be trusted and cannot be dealt in any way. A

counterargument can reinforce the author’s argument by demonstrating that the author has

thought about all sides of the topic. Hence, the author can strengthen their argument by

responding to counterarguments, which will help him or her demonstrate how his or her

argument is dominant and superior to other arguments.

The study's generalizability is also impacted by the fact that it is restricted to the US and lacks pa

rticipants, statistical methodologies. This weakens the research as it is a qualitative paper. In this

kind of research, experimental research is particularly vital for gathering the data needed to

support stronger and more credible assertions. As a result, the article's impartiality and reliability

are diminished by the lack of an experiment.