It seems to me that treating enemy soldiers with exactly the same priority as friendly ones could create a perverse incentive. It means in some cases our soldiers could die because the doctors are busy treating enemies. If the troops in the field know this, they may try to prevent this from happening, by making sure enemy soldiers are killed rather than wounded, or by delaying or avoiding transporting them to the hospital.
Most American doctors are trained with a very “first in line gets my whole attention” ethic. It’s an ethic that seems notably strange to many Australian and British doctors. It’s not as notable inside the USA, because compared to Aus and the UK, the whole of American society operates on a slightly different ethical basis.
I’m not saying that an Aus soldier would get treatment before an enemy combatant. Just that the decision is slightly less likely to be made on the basis of “he’s my patient so he’ll get the best possible care, even if that means everybody else dies”
Allocation of health resources is a well known issue in health care, so this case exists in the context of similar questions about health care in third-world countries and first-world countries.
I remember asking my dad who was in nam from 68-71 because of a mash episode asking the same thing and he said it was who ever had the worst injuries was treated first then it was first come first serve
Who ever gave an order that would let anyone die on either side would be in trouble with the US armed forces and the UN as it would be a war crime under the Geneva convention and apparently the un loved to show up with “observers” when ever they felt like it unannounced
Apparently they also had problems with some of the more strident men from the south and black doctors/patients
It is supposed to balanced by the opposite side following the same rules / policy. So your medical personnel act ethically then theirs do likewise.
And of course there is the pragmatic reason, a wounded enemy who surrenders knowing they’ll get equal treatment is infinitely preferable to one who keeps fighting because they have nothing to lose.