Arts, Books, Medical, Society, Syria

Book Review – War Doctor: Surgery On The Front Line

MEMOIR

Syria, 2012 – Location: Atmeh. A woman was rushed to the operating theatre with severe bomb damage to her leg.

Dr David Nott, a trauma surgeon, clamped the artery to prevent her from bleeding to death and gently pressed a finger into the gaping hole above her knee joint. He felt an object. It was probably some kind of shrapnel, but it was strangely smooth and cylindrical.

Dr Nott grabbed it with his fingers – “very carefully”, he recalls – and pulled it out. Once extracted he held it up to examine it. His Syrian helper took one look and went visibly pale; he obviously knew what was being presented and blurted out, “Mufajir!” before turning tail and leaving the room.

Nott and the anaesthetist locked eyes in panic. Was this some kind of bomb? The room fell silent, bar the hiss of the patient’s ventilator. The anaesthetist backed away and Nott felt his hand begin to shake so vigorously, he was in danger of dropping the thing.

Then the Syrian helper rushed back in with a bucket of water and motioned for Nott to place the metal object carefully into the bottom of it. He later learned that “mufajir” means “detonator” and it could have blown off his hand.

The woman was injured when a bomb her husband had been making in their kitchen had prematurely detonated, killing him instantly.

You can sense Dr Nott’s frustration and anger at the speed with which the Syrian civil war escalated. It had begun in March 2011, when a peaceful protest against the oppressive regime of Bashar al-Assad was met with shocking brutality.

By chance, Nott had met al-Assad in the early 1990s, when the dictator-in-waiting was working as an ophthalmic senior house officer at the Western Eye Hospital, London.

“He seemed very pleasant and respectful,” recalls the surgeon who would later treat Assad’s victims, including a heavily pregnant woman whose unborn child had been shot through the head by a sniper.

In his devastating memoir of more than two decades volunteering his services in some of the world’s most dangerous places, Nott doesn’t speculate on what changed al-Assad’s attitude to his fellow human beings.

He does, however, pinpoint the precise moment that a shy boy from rural Wales realised he wanted to become a “war doctor”, his epiphany occurring in 1985 when he first qualified as a surgeon. His parents took him to the cinema to see The Killing Fields (Roland Joffe’s 1984 drama about the civil war in Cambodia).

Nott’s father, also a doctor, was born in Burma and Nott had endured racist bullying as a child.

“The film lit a torch in me,” he says. “I could relate to its themes of innocent people being bullied, pushed around or dismissed. It gave a vivid depiction of the horrors of war. But, more than that, the film depicted the incredible power of human love in the face of unimaginable adversity.”

Some eight years later, Nott was standing over an operating table in Sarajevo. He had taken a month’s unpaid leave from the NHS to volunteer for the French aid organisation Médecins Sans Frontieres. The Bosnian civil war opened his eyes to a new medicine, in which decisions had to be made quickly, without the diagnostic tests and specialist equipment on which he had come to depend.

“I had never seen injuries like the ones that were coming in every hour.”

 

THE damage inflicted by bombs and high-velocity bullets was of an entirely different order from those received in even the most catastrophic trauma car accidents.

Multiple limbs were often missing. Many patients were dead on arrival, accompanied by relatives begging for help that Nott could not provide.

When he could attempt surgery, the hospital generators would often fail, and the team would have to wait until a porter brought in a wheelbarrow full of car batteries to get the theatre functioning again.

When bombs fell on the hospital itself, Nott’s team fled, leaving him alone in the dark, his hands around the failing heart of a teenage boy.

Stumbling from the room, soaked in his patient’s blood, Nott felt angry and betrayed. But he soon learned that, as an aid worker, his first duty was to keep himself alive so that he could help more people.

It was the first of many difficult moral choices he would have to make in Afghanistan, Sierra Leone, Chad, the Ivory Coast, Libya, Gaza, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Iraq and Pakistan.

In his scrubs, would you defy the Taliban policeman forbidding you to treat a woman bleeding to death in childbirth? Would you save the life of an ISIS fundamentalist likely to kidnap you on recovery? Would you give money to the children of dead patients?

Dr Nott had to make all these calls under extraordinary pressure.

He describes numerous near-death experiences and there was some terrible emotional fallout.

After returning from one mission, Nott found himself unable to bear the complaints of a British patient fretting about her “unsightly” thread veins and began a screaming, feigned sciatic attack until she left his consulting room.

He also had a panic attack when invited to a private lunch with the Queen. Overwhelmed by the contrast between the luxury of Buckingham Palace and the desolation he had seen in Syria, Nott found himself unable to answer Her Majesty’s questions.

As visions of limbless children filled his head, she placed her hand gently on his and encouraged him to pet her dogs. “There,” she said. “That’s so much better than talking, isn’t it.”

These days, the 63-year-old medic still travels the world to help victims of disaster. But his priorities changed after meeting his wife, Elly, at a charity event for Syria Relief in 2013.

The relationship came as a “bolt from the blue” to the man with a “monastic existence”. But, before they could arrange a first date, Nott made a trip to Gaza, where he elected to stay in the operating theatre to save the life of a little girl called Aysha, even though he had been ordered to evacuate the hospital because an airstrike was expected in minutes.

It was a story that Dr Nott told on Radio 4’s Desert Island Discs in 2017, reducing listeners to tears as he described how he still treasures the photograph he has of her, smiling as she recovered.

David married Elly in 2015 and welcomed daughter Molly the same year. Elly – an Oxford graduate with an MA in international relations – was the chief executive of the David Nott Foundation (a charity training surgeons to work in conflict zones) until the beginning of 2019.

Although as a husband and father, Nott tries harder to avoid danger, he finds it hard to be optimistic about the situation in Syria.

But he remains committed in continuing to train doctors working there.

On the final page of his book, Nott quotes the Koran: “Whoever saves a life, it shall be as though he had saved the lives of all mankind.”

– (Memoir) War Doctor: Surgery On The Front Line by David Nott is published by Picador for £18.99, 304pp

Standard
Britain, European Union, Government, Politics, Society

The tawdry show of Brexit goes to the brink

BREXIT

The decision by Prime Minister Theresa May to delay the “meaningful” Commons vote on her Brexit deal until March 12 – just 17 days before the UK is due to leave the EU – is, unquestionably, a gamble that takes things to the very brink. It is a colossal gamble, but one in which Mrs May had little option but to take.

MPs on all sides will finally have to choose between Mrs May’s deal, No Deal, or effectively no Brexit. This has removed all bluster and political manoeuvring. It leaves just stark choices.

A rehashed motion from Labour’s Yvette Cooper and Tory Nick Boles which is expected to pass the chamber tomorrow is likely to concentrate minds further. That motion says that if no deal is agreed before March 13, Article 50 – our formal departure from the EU – should be delayed, taking No Deal off the table.

But this has two huge drawbacks. It removes a crucial bargaining chip with Brussels. And while saying what Brexit shouldn’t be, the motion offers no viable plan for what it should be. Those who support Mrs May’s withdrawal agreement will suggest, as they have consistently done, that the only plan that is viable, honours the referendum result and averts No Deal, is the Prime Minister’s plan.

Whilst the odds are daunting, there may still be a way in which she is able to get it through.

First, the EU must offer legally binding assurances over the so-called Irish backstop to satisfy the Democratic Unionist Party that Northern Ireland’s place in the UK is not under threat. Without that, the deal is dead – with potentially calamitous consequences for the whole of Europe.

If the DUP is assuaged, Tory hardliners in the European Research Group (ERG) led by Jacob Rees-Mogg, may be persuaded to back their leader – especially in light of the Cooper-Boles amendment which could stop Brexit altogether.

True, some ERG members appear so implacably opposed to the deal that almost nothing would change their minds.

But with Labour in open rebellion against its leader, some Opposition MPs – especially those from Leave-voting areas – may be prepared to defy the Corbyn whip and make up the numbers needed to push the agreement through.

To be realised, this will require good faith on all sides – something conspicuously lacking so far. No one is totally happy with the deal, but it provides a pragmatic compromise. Tory MPs especially need to rediscover the virtues of party loyalty and service to their constituents if they wish to stay in office and by remaining the ruling party – by backing it.

The clock is ticking louder than ever towards March 29.

Standard
Britain, Government, Internet, Politics, Society

Internet safety: The era of tech self-regulation is ending

SOCIAL MEDIA

THE safety of the internet has been at the forefront of people’s minds in recent weeks. We have all heard the tragic stories of young and vulnerable people being negatively influenced by social media. Whilst the technology has the power to do good, it is clear that things need to change. With power comes responsibility and the time has certainly come for the tech companies to be held properly accountable.

. See also: Probe launched into online giants

The UK Government is serious in wishing to tackle many of the negative aspects associated with social media, and the forthcoming White Paper on online harms is indicative of their concern.

The world’s biggest technology firms, including Facebook, Twitter, Google and Apple are coming under increasing pressure from ministers who have made clear to them that they will not stand by and see people unreasonably and unnecessarily exposed to harm. They insist that if it wouldn’t be acceptable offline then it should not be acceptable online.

Safety is at the forefront of almost every other industry. The online world should be no different. Make no mistake, these firms are here to stay, and, as a result, they have a big role to play as part of the solution. It’s vital that they use their technology to protect the people – their customers – who use it every day.

It’s important not to lose sight of what online harms actually are. Yes, it includes things like cyberbullying, images of self -harm, terrorism and grooming. But disinformation – which challenges our ideas of democracy and truth – must be tackled head on, too.

Disinformation isn’t new. But the rise of tech platforms has meant that it is arguably more prevalent than ever before. It is now possible for a range of players to reach large parts of the population with false information. Tackling harms like disinformation is to be included in the Government’s White Paper. That will set out a new framework for making sure disinformation is tackled effectively, while respecting freedom of expression and promoting innovation.

In the UK, most people who read the news now do so online. When it is read across platforms like Facebook, Google and Twitter and then shared thousands of times, the reach is immense. False information on these platforms has the potential to threaten public safety, harm national security, reduce trust in the media, damage the UK’s global influence and by undermining our democratic processes.

To date, we’re yet to see any evidence of disinformation affecting democratic processes in the UK. However, that is something that the Government is continuing to keep a very close eye on.

Tools exist to enable action to be taken, particularly through the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI). We’ve already seen welcome moves from platforms such as Facebook and Twitter, which have developed initiatives to help users identify the trustworthiness of sources and which have shut down thousands of fake sites. Because voluntary measures have not been enough, the UK Government wants trustworthy information to flourish online and for there to be transparency so that the public are not duped. Parliament is said to care deeply about this, as a recent report from the Select Committee into disinformation shows.

But more needs to be done. One of the main recommendations in the Cairncross report on the future of journalism was to put a “news quality obligation” on the larger online platforms – placing their efforts to improve people’s understanding of the trustworthiness of news articles under regulatory supervision.

Online firms rely on the masses spending time online. Individuals should only really do that if they feel safe there. A safer internet is surely good for business too.

It seems apparent that we can no longer rely on the industry’s goodwill. Around the world governments are facing the challenge of how to keep citizens safe online. As the era of self-regulation comes to an end, it would now seem that the UK can and should lead the way.

 

THE internet is a liberating force, but also potentially a malign one. MPs and ministers have been all too happy to expound upon the undoubted benefits brought by the rapid growth of the digital economy. Yet they have struggled to come up with measures that would address the damage that it can cause – from social media addiction and the abuse of online platforms by child groomers and terrorists, to the links between internet use and poor mental health among children.

There are promising signs that action may be imminent, however. A new report recently released by the House of Commons Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee calls for technology companies to be required to adhere to a Code of Ethics overseen by an independent regulator. The code would set down in writing what is and is not acceptable on social media, and the regulator, crucially, would have teeth: the power to launch legal action against firms that breach the code.

This is, undoubtedly, a welcome proposal. Much of the trouble that children and their parents have experienced online in recent years has been a consequence of a failure by the technology companies to take responsibility for the damage that their products and services can cause. They have continued to host harmful and sometimes illegal material, for example, and it is still too easy for young children to access their sites despite age limits.

As we can no longer rely on the industry’s goodwill, self-regulation has evidently failed. The photo sharing site Instagram, for instance, committed recently to banning all images of self-harm on its platform, but only after the outcry following the tragic death of a young and vulnerable person. Without legally-enforceable penalties, such companies – with their ‘move fast and break things’ cultures – face little incentive to prioritise the safety of their users, particularly young people and the vulnerable.

The Committee’s proposal currently remains just that, and the Government has pledged to produce a White Paper setting out how it intends to take the regulation of social media forward.

Half-measures will not be enough. Ministers must impose a statutory duty of care on the social media giants.

Standard