The Norwegian Mobile Army Surgical Hospital in the Korean War (1951–1954)

Military Hospital or Humanitarian “Sanctuary?”

Jan Thore Lockertsen, Ashild Fause, Christine Hallett

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

During the Korean War (1950–1953) the Norwegian government sent a mobile army surgical hospital (MASH) to support the efforts of the United Nations (UN) Army. From the first, its status was ambiguous. The US-led military medical services believed that the “Norwegian Mobile Army Surgical Hospital” (NORMASH) was no different from any other MASH; but both its originators and its staff regarded it as a vehicle for humanitarian aid. Members of the hospital soon recognized that their status in the war zone was primarily that of a military field hospital. Yet they insisted on providing essential medical care to the local civilian population as well as trauma care to UN soldiers and prisoners of war. The ambiguities that arose from the dual mission of NORMASH are explored in this article, which pays particular attention to the experiences of nurses, as expressed in three types of source: their contemporary letters to their Matron-in-Chief; a report written by one nurse shortly after the war; and a series of oral history interviews conducted approximately 60 years later. The article concludes that the nurses of NORMASH experienced no real role-conflict. They viewed it as natural that they should offer their services to both military and civilian casualties according to need, and they experienced a sense of satisfaction from their work with both types of patient. Ultimately, the experience of Norwegian nurses in Korea illustrates the powerful sense of personal agency that could be experienced by nurses in forward field hospitals, where political decision-making did not impinge too forcefully on their clinical and ethical judgment as clinicians.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)93-126
Number of pages34
JournalNursing History Review
Volume28
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Sep 2019

Fingerprint

Korean War
Mobile Health Units
Military Hospitals
Nurses
United Nations
Prisoners of War
Interviews
Job Satisfaction
Military Personnel
Korea
Decision Making

Cite this

@article{adb1dab3ec34469da02aeec62824f0cc,
title = "The Norwegian Mobile Army Surgical Hospital in the Korean War (1951–1954): Military Hospital or Humanitarian “Sanctuary?”",
abstract = "During the Korean War (1950–1953) the Norwegian government sent a mobile army surgical hospital (MASH) to support the efforts of the United Nations (UN) Army. From the first, its status was ambiguous. The US-led military medical services believed that the “Norwegian Mobile Army Surgical Hospital” (NORMASH) was no different from any other MASH; but both its originators and its staff regarded it as a vehicle for humanitarian aid. Members of the hospital soon recognized that their status in the war zone was primarily that of a military field hospital. Yet they insisted on providing essential medical care to the local civilian population as well as trauma care to UN soldiers and prisoners of war. The ambiguities that arose from the dual mission of NORMASH are explored in this article, which pays particular attention to the experiences of nurses, as expressed in three types of source: their contemporary letters to their Matron-in-Chief; a report written by one nurse shortly after the war; and a series of oral history interviews conducted approximately 60 years later. The article concludes that the nurses of NORMASH experienced no real role-conflict. They viewed it as natural that they should offer their services to both military and civilian casualties according to need, and they experienced a sense of satisfaction from their work with both types of patient. Ultimately, the experience of Norwegian nurses in Korea illustrates the powerful sense of personal agency that could be experienced by nurses in forward field hospitals, where political decision-making did not impinge too forcefully on their clinical and ethical judgment as clinicians.",
author = "Lockertsen, {Jan Thore} and Ashild Fause and Christine Hallett",
year = "2019",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1891/1062-8061.28.93",
language = "English",
volume = "28",
pages = "93--126",
journal = "Nursing History Review",
issn = "1062-8061",
publisher = "Springer Publishing Company",
number = "1",

}

The Norwegian Mobile Army Surgical Hospital in the Korean War (1951–1954) : Military Hospital or Humanitarian “Sanctuary?”. / Lockertsen, Jan Thore; Fause, Ashild; Hallett, Christine.

In: Nursing History Review, Vol. 28, No. 1, 01.09.2019, p. 93-126.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - The Norwegian Mobile Army Surgical Hospital in the Korean War (1951–1954)

T2 - Military Hospital or Humanitarian “Sanctuary?”

AU - Lockertsen, Jan Thore

AU - Fause, Ashild

AU - Hallett, Christine

PY - 2019/9/1

Y1 - 2019/9/1

N2 - During the Korean War (1950–1953) the Norwegian government sent a mobile army surgical hospital (MASH) to support the efforts of the United Nations (UN) Army. From the first, its status was ambiguous. The US-led military medical services believed that the “Norwegian Mobile Army Surgical Hospital” (NORMASH) was no different from any other MASH; but both its originators and its staff regarded it as a vehicle for humanitarian aid. Members of the hospital soon recognized that their status in the war zone was primarily that of a military field hospital. Yet they insisted on providing essential medical care to the local civilian population as well as trauma care to UN soldiers and prisoners of war. The ambiguities that arose from the dual mission of NORMASH are explored in this article, which pays particular attention to the experiences of nurses, as expressed in three types of source: their contemporary letters to their Matron-in-Chief; a report written by one nurse shortly after the war; and a series of oral history interviews conducted approximately 60 years later. The article concludes that the nurses of NORMASH experienced no real role-conflict. They viewed it as natural that they should offer their services to both military and civilian casualties according to need, and they experienced a sense of satisfaction from their work with both types of patient. Ultimately, the experience of Norwegian nurses in Korea illustrates the powerful sense of personal agency that could be experienced by nurses in forward field hospitals, where political decision-making did not impinge too forcefully on their clinical and ethical judgment as clinicians.

AB - During the Korean War (1950–1953) the Norwegian government sent a mobile army surgical hospital (MASH) to support the efforts of the United Nations (UN) Army. From the first, its status was ambiguous. The US-led military medical services believed that the “Norwegian Mobile Army Surgical Hospital” (NORMASH) was no different from any other MASH; but both its originators and its staff regarded it as a vehicle for humanitarian aid. Members of the hospital soon recognized that their status in the war zone was primarily that of a military field hospital. Yet they insisted on providing essential medical care to the local civilian population as well as trauma care to UN soldiers and prisoners of war. The ambiguities that arose from the dual mission of NORMASH are explored in this article, which pays particular attention to the experiences of nurses, as expressed in three types of source: their contemporary letters to their Matron-in-Chief; a report written by one nurse shortly after the war; and a series of oral history interviews conducted approximately 60 years later. The article concludes that the nurses of NORMASH experienced no real role-conflict. They viewed it as natural that they should offer their services to both military and civilian casualties according to need, and they experienced a sense of satisfaction from their work with both types of patient. Ultimately, the experience of Norwegian nurses in Korea illustrates the powerful sense of personal agency that could be experienced by nurses in forward field hospitals, where political decision-making did not impinge too forcefully on their clinical and ethical judgment as clinicians.

UR - https://www.springerpub.com/nursing-history-review.html

U2 - 10.1891/1062-8061.28.93

DO - 10.1891/1062-8061.28.93

M3 - Article

VL - 28

SP - 93

EP - 126

JO - Nursing History Review

JF - Nursing History Review

SN - 1062-8061

IS - 1

ER -