Dr. Mary Hanna, a captain in the Army Reserves in the Boston area, and a devout Coptic Christian, was recently denied her request for discharge as a conscientious objector. A federal judge in Boston, however, has stopped the Army from immediately forcing Hanna into active duty until after her hearing on October 5th.

Last December, near the end of her anesthesiology residency at Beth Israel Deaconess Hospital in Boston, Hanna had notified the Army that she wanted to be discharged as a conscientious objector. Hanna pointed to the 2003 death of her father, a former Egyptian military officer, as an event that started her down a path when she began to take her faith more seriously, an event that eventually led to her "crystallization of conscience” – the point at which she realized her religious beliefs conflicted with military service. Hanna said that in 1997, when she originally made the agreement to serve four years in active duty and another four in the reserves in exchange for the Army's paying for her education at the Tufts University School of Medicine, she had no convictions about war. Since then, however, her beliefs have changed.

Hanna's attorney said that she will repay the $184,000 the government has invested in her education. And an army hearing officer and several high-ranking officers concluded that Hanna was, indeed, a sincere conscientious objector. A brigadier general wrote, “The solemnity of her convictions is clear . . . and they do not appear to have been born of a desire to avoid service." But an Army review board still voted 2-1 to reject Hanna’s discharge, claiming her statements lacked “passion and sincerity.”

Critics of Hanna's decision on various blogs have many of the same harsh comments: "Why is it that so many officers-to-be who claim to be conscientious objectors suddenly 'discover' the fact right about the time they're finishing school on the government dime, and not 3 years before?" "She may be barred from bearing arms, but not from treating the injured, whether they are in the military or out of it -- and whether or not she is in an Army uniform or out of it." I think she needs a good long talk with her priest -- refusing to treat soldiers -- or policemen or criminals -- because they are sinners, is probably a bigger sin than they are guilty of. After all, you are supposed to love the sinner, even if you hate the sin."

These above statements, taken from blogs that have posted articles about Hanna's case, seem to represent the three main substantial criticisms of any substance against Dr. Hanna. Therefore, we at CPF will try to respond to these critiques in an informative way, and hopefully help to clarify some misconceptions. (We will not respond to attacks on Hanna and the many ludicrous calls for years of imprisonment and “hard labor.”)

First, many are angry at Hanna for waiting and deciding at the "last minute" that her Christian beliefs conflicted with military service. Although Hanna’s timing makes it look like she is just trying to “get out” of serving, it actually makes a lot of sense that her "crystallization of conscience" came at a time when, not only had her father just died and she had begun to take her faith more seriously, but also the reality of her military service had hit her. It is often the case that people make difficult decisions when their choices become real, rather than just remaining a far-off idea. Not only is her choice a morally sound one, but it also squares with the legal requirements of being a conscientious objector. A CO from the military must prove that his/her beliefs did not become incompatible with military service until after s/he signed the military contract. Even the military recognizes that people have moments in their lives when their moral beliefs change. This is why there are legal provisions for conscientious objection.

The second argument is that Dr. Hanna should not have any moral problems with treating the injured, as a medic's job is to save lives, and not to kill. On the surface, this seems like a reasonable claim. This is why there is such thing as a noncombatant conscientious objector (1-A-0) in the military, a service member who is not required to carry a weapon, use a weapon, or be trained in the use of weapons.

However, a doctor like Hanna may not be able to live with the fact that her life would constantly be protected by her comrades and friends who had to fire their guns - who had to kill - so that she might live. Perhaps this was something Hanna could not live with. It is also obvious that even a medic, who might not have to use a weapon to kill in war, is still a party to that war. Hanna, or other doctors like her, may believe that serving in a war, while not necessarily directly taking lives, is still supporting the war-effort.

Lastly, Dr. Hanna is a follower of Coptic Christianity, the indigenous Christianity of Egypt that, according to tradition, the apostle Mark established in the middle of the first century. The third argument against Hanna’s CO claim is that it is “not Christian.” On the contrary. Christianity has much in its teaching and tradition to support Hanna's decision - the most notable of which is Jesus' refusal to use violence to save even His own life.

While we believe Dr. Hanna's decision to pay back the U.S. Army for her education is a noble one, we support her decision to declare her beliefs as a conscientious objector and to refuse to participate in the military. And while we do not believe Hanna should be punished for her actions, we hope that she will hold firm in her conviction, even if it leads to a harsh penalty.