Introduction by Croakey: The last remaining neonatal intensive care unit in northern Gaza has reportedly been damaged in heavy attacks in recent days, according to UNICEF.
In a statement on 5 November, the agency said reports indicated that children at the Kamal Adwan Hospital had been killed and injured in these attacks, while the unit’s oxygen and water supplies had been damaged, “disrupting critical care for the few still clinging to life inside”.
“Any newborn baby fighting to sustain its breaths from inside a hospital incubator is entirely defenceless and entirely reliant on specialist medical care and equipment to survive,” said UNICEF’s Middle East and North Africa Regional Director Adele Khodr.
“In the Gaza Strip, at least 4,000 babies are estimated to have been cut off from lifesaving newborn care in the past year because of sustained attacks on the hospitals earnestly trying to keep them alive, because electricity supply has been cut off and because the little fuel delivered to power hospitals is woefully inadequate. This has been especially deadly in the northern parts of the Gaza Strip.”
Khodr said healthcare facilities were protected under International Humanitarian Law, as were providers and humanitarian personnel.
“Vulnerable newborns and sick and wounded children in need of intensive care are being killed in tents, in incubators and in the arms of their parents,” Khodr said. “That this hasn’t galvanised enough political will to end the war represents a fundamental crisis of our humanity.”
Meanwhile, a “complete evacuation” of northern Gaza is now underway, reports The Guardian, with the Israel Defence Force saying residents will not be allowed to return home, in what appears to be the first official acknowledgment that Israel is systematically removing Palestinians from the area.
Amid escalating concerns about the toll on civilians in Gaza and Lebanon, a panel discussion recently took place at the University of Melbourne about the ethics of universities investing in, or working with companies that make weapons.
One of the speakers, Dr Hadrien Moffroid, a founding member of the Health Students Association for the Prevention of War, provides a summary below, suggesting that the fundamental role of universities is at stake.
Other speakers included Hadil Albarqi, a Palestinian from Gaza and University of Melbourne graduate, Dr Elizabeth Strakosch from the Jewish Council of Australia, and Associate Professor Tilman Ruff AO from the Medical Association for Prevention of War.
Hadrien Moffroid writes:
The question ‘Is it ethical for universities to invest in, or work with, companies that manufacture weapons?’ is one that is directly relevant to global health and the role of our universities in promoting it.
This issue has come to the fore over the past year as many university students and staff alike have been very disturbed by universities’ investments in and/or academic collaboration with the world’s biggest weapons companies – companies that have facilitated the near total destruction of healthcare, education facilities and other civilian infrastructure in Gaza.
The cost in human lives, health and wellbeing of this one war alone, regularly documented by Croakey, is staggering.
On 11 October, a panel discussion on the above question was held at the University of Melbourne, in honour of peace activist and former president of the Medical Association for Prevention of War, the late Dr Bill Williams (1958-2016).
Unfortunately, the university’s leadership was unavailable to take part and declined to send a proxy speaker or a statement to the event.
Three key themes emerged during the discussion.
Ethical contradictions and moral responsibilities
Armed conflict and the weapons that enable it undermine health in multiple ways, including by death, maiming, permanent psychological damage, infectious disease outbreaks, destruction of healthcare, starvation, poisoning of the environment, diversion of scarce funds from human welfare needs, and many others. The world’s biggest weapons makers rely on wars for their existence.
The ethical implications this poses for universities in working with weapons makers were best captured at the University of Melbourne event by Hadil Albarqi, a University of Melbourne graduate and a Palestinian from Gaza, who questioned whether universities can truly uphold their ethical standards when they align themselves with industries that perpetuate violence.
Albarqi pointed out the university’s complicity in global conflicts, as many of the weapons being developed in partnership with academic institutions eventually end up in war-torn regions like her homeland.
This raises profound ethical concerns about universities condoning the prioritisation of profit over human life.
She eloquently described this as “deafening and violent silence”, pointing to the lack of transparency and accountability regarding where and how the technologies developed within universities are used.
Neoliberalism and universities
Dr Elizabeth Strakosch, from Melbourne University’s School of Social and Political Sciences, and a member of the Jewish Council of Australia, addressed the increasing corporatisation of universities, which is leading to a shift away from academic freedom and toward the demands of corporate partners and government interests.
As public funding for education diminishes, universities become increasingly financially dependent on partnerships with industries like arms manufacturing.
Strakosch noted that the Department of Defence increased its funding to Australian universities from zero in 2005 to nearly $100 million by 2015, a clear indication of the growing military influence on research agendas.
Associate Professor Tilman Ruff AO, from Melbourne University’s School of Population and Global Health, and the founding chair internationally and in Australia of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), agreed that the shift toward a business model compromises the role of universities as places of dissent and inquiry.
The focus on economic gains has diluted their capacity to serve the public good, which is evident in universities’ engagement with companies such as Lockheed Martin (whose F35 fighter jets have been used to destroy a huge number of lives along with healthcare and other civilian infrastructure in Gaza).
Ruff also highlighted the University of Melbourne’s desire to associate with peace initiatives like ICAN’s Nobel Prize-winning efforts on nuclear disarmament, while at the same time profiting from collaborations with nuclear weapons manufacturers, exposing a deep hypocrisy.
As a recent University of Melbourne graduate in medicine, I agreed that research funded by weapons manufacturers may steer academic inquiry towards weapons company interests rather than towards fields that promote health and human welfare.
In addition, this could facilitate an occult growth of a culture of militarisation and a desensitisation to the use of weaponry.
These values are diametrically opposed to the mission statement of The University of Melbourne: “to benefit society through the transformative impact of education and research”.
Geopolitics and legal considerations
When discussing the legal considerations surrounding university ties with weapons manufacturers, it’s essential to recognise that legality does not necessarily equate to ethical soundness.
Ruff emphasised the importance of looking beyond legality when assessing the ethical ramifications of these partnerships. Universities often argue that their collaborations comply with existing laws and regulations governing research.
However, historical precedents – such as the once-legal development of biological and chemical weapons – serve as stark reminders that what is legally permissible can evolve over time and may eventually be deemed morally unacceptable.
This fluidity in legal standards highlights the importance of universities conducting thorough ethical assessments alongside legal compliance, ensuring that their partnerships do not merely skirt the edges of legality but instead align with the higher ethical standards they profess to uphold.
Universities at a crossroads
Universities are at a crossroads, faced with choosing between working with companies whose products cause direct and severe harm to health, and universities’ ethical obligation to promote peace and human welfare.
While the pressure to rely on industry funding grows, institutions need to remember their core values and reconsider carefully who they align with.
There is precedent for universities to stand against corporate interests for ethical reasons – in their divestment from the tobacco industry and, to a lesser extent, from fossil fuels.
The ethical dilemma touches on the fundamental role of universities in society.
Are they institutions that promote human welfare and intellectual freedom, or are they transforming into engines of profit, shaped by military and other corporate interests?
With numerous wars raging across the world and the toll of human suffering mounting, the time has come for universities to critically re-evaluate these partnerships and sever ties with industries that compromise their responsibility to the global community.
Watch a video of the discussion here.
Author details
Dr Hadrien Moffroid is a Junior Doctor at the Royal Melbourne Hospital and a founding member of the Health Students Association for the Prevention of War.
Further updates
“The tremendous dedication, engagement and courage of parents, children, communities and health workers” has enabled another phase of polio vaccination to be completed in northern Gaza, according to UNICEF.
In a statement on 6 November, the agency said about 94 percent of the target population of 591,714 children under the age of 10 years received their second dose of nOPV2 across the Gaza Strip, “a remarkable achievement given the extremely difficult circumstances”.
However, in northern Gaza, where the campaign was compromised due to lack of access, approximately 88 percent coverage was achieved with an estimated 7,000-10,000 children still unvaccinated and vulnerable to the poliovirus.
“This also increases the risk of further spread of poliovirus in the Gaza Strip and neighbouring countries,” said UNICEF.
The polio campaign, being conducted by the Palestinian Ministry of Health in collaboration with the World Health Organization, UNICEF, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees (UNRWA), and other partners, was part of emergency efforts to stop a polio outbreak in Gaza, which was detected on 16 July 2024.
Since July 2024, circulating variant poliovirus type 2 has been confirmed in Gaza in 11 environmental samples and in a 10-month-old paralysed child (in August 2024.)
See Croakey’s archives of articles on global health
