War’s Devastating Health Toll: Why Medical Professionals Are Calling for Peace

Kamran Abbasi, editor-in-chief of the British Medical Journal, has warned that war represents one of the greatest threats to global health—and that the international community must urgently recognise the inextricable link between peace and wellbeing.

In his editorial published by the BMJ, Abbasi argues that whilst the destructive nature of warfare is widely acknowledged, the full scale of its health consequences remains underappreciated by policymakers and the arms industry. As conflicts persist across Ukraine, the Middle East, Gaza, and Sudan, millions of civilians are experiencing both immediate trauma and long-term health crises triggered by war’s cascading effects on health infrastructure, water supplies, and food security.

The health consequences of armed conflict extend far beyond battlefield injuries. When wars erupt, entire health systems collapse, leaving populations without access to essential medicines, vaccinations, and treatments for chronic diseases. Air and water contamination—common outcomes of military operations—breed infectious diseases that spread rapidly through displaced populations living in overcrowded camps.

The World Health Organisation has repeatedly urged restraint as civilians and healthcare facilities come under direct attack during ongoing conflicts. Hospitals, which should remain neutral spaces under international humanitarian law, have been deliberately targeted in multiple regions, destroying critical infrastructure and killing medical staff.

Beyond the immediate destruction, wars trigger what economists call an “opportunity cost” in public health spending. Every pound spent on military operations represents resources diverted from healthcare budgets, medical research, and disease prevention programmes. Globally, military expenditure already exceeds £2.7 trillion annually—a figure that continues to rise as nations increase defence spending in response to geopolitical tensions.

Researchers at the British Medical Journal have raised concerns about the arms industry operating as what they term a “commercial determinant of health”—comparable to how tobacco, alcohol, and fossil fuel industries influence public health policy. The arms industry, they argue, uses lobbying, think tank funding, and close government relationships to shape policy environments in its favour whilst deflecting responsibility for the deaths and injuries their products facilitate.

This influence extends to dictating global security discourse and framing conflict as inevitable, rather than exploring diplomatic and preventative approaches. Health professionals have successfully challenged other powerful industries before through coalition-building and exposing policy manipulation; the medical community is now being urged to apply the same rigorous scrutiny to weapons manufacturers.

Health experts are calling for renewed support for what they term a “peace dividend”—a reorientation of spending priorities away from military expansion and towards sustained investment in healthcare, welfare, and foreign aid. This is not merely a moral argument; it is an economic and public health imperative.

During the Cold War, debates about “welfare versus warfare” regularly featured in policy discussions. Today, as NATO nations dramatically increase defence spending and global military expenditure soars, these conversations have largely disappeared from mainstream policy debate—despite their critical importance to population health.

Women and girls face disproportionate harms during conflicts. Beyond combat-related injuries, wartime disruption creates conditions where gender-based violence escalates, maternal healthcare collapses, and educational opportunities vanish—effects that ripple across generations.

The BMJ’s editorials call for health professionals—doctors, nurses, researchers, and public health specialists—to become more vocal advocates for peace and to scrutinise the arms industry’s influence on government agendas. Health practitioners possess unique credibility as trusted voices in society and can help counter industry narratives that frame warfare as a necessary or inevitable solution to security challenges.

Universities and academic institutions are also encouraged to examine funding links to the arms industry and to recognise that such partnerships carry health and environmental consequences that merit transparent debate.

For patients across Kent and Medway, the health consequences of global conflict and military spending have tangible local effects. The NHS is under considerable financial pressure; resources directed towards military expenditure represent funds unavailable for expanding cancer services, mental health provision, or addressing waiting lists. Furthermore, displaced persons and refugees fleeing conflict zones often arrive in the UK requiring trauma-informed care, infectious disease screening, and long-term support—services provided by already-stretched NHS teams across Kent and Medway NHS Trust.

Health professionals working in Kent’s GP practices, hospitals, and community services are encouraged to engage with these discussions about the relationship between peace, security, and health. For more information about NHS services in Kent, residents can contact their local GP or visit the NHS England website for details about services in the Kent and Medway region.

Key Takeaways

• War destroys health systems, contaminates water and air, and forces displacement—creating cascading health crises that extend far beyond combat injuries
• Global military spending now exceeds £2.7 trillion annually, competing directly with healthcare budgets and foreign aid programmes
• The arms industry operates as a commercial determinant of health, influencing government policy through lobbying and close relationships whilst deflecting responsibility for conflict-related deaths
• Health professionals are uniquely positioned to advocate for peace dividends and to scrutinise the arms industry’s influence on public health policy

What This Means for Kent Residents

For Kent residents, global conflicts and military spending have direct implications for NHS services locally. Resources diverted to defence budgets represent funds unavailable for healthcare expansion and services in the Kent and Medway region. Additionally, the NHS often provides care to refugees and asylum seekers fleeing conflict zones, placing further demand on already-stretched services. Health professionals across Kent and Medway NHS Trust are being encouraged to engage in discussions about the relationship between peace, security, and public health. Residents seeking NHS services can contact their GP or ring NHS 111 for non-emergency healthcare advice.