Medical Care Intentially Withheld?

[Littlestown]

In the article - http://www.cbsnews.com/2300-204_162-10008746.html
"At left is a drawing of Private George W. Lemon, who was shot in the leg at the Battle of the Wilderness on May 5, 1864. Because he was captured by Confederate soldiers, he did not receive treatment for his injuries until over a week later, and then suffered repeated infections for over a year. Finally, his leg was amputated and he received an artificial leg."

Making it seem as though medical treatment was intentionally withheld. Do you think medical aid to the opposing side was expressly withheld throughout the war? It would make sense that each side would take care of their own wounded first, but, has anyone ever found evidence that there were orders to let the enemy lay unattended?

 

[Carronade]

It doesn't actually say anything about it being intentional. It could just as easily mean "because he was captured by the side that had poorer medical resources." Also, there were many cases of soldiers not getting prompt treatment even by their own side; medical care was nothing like the standards we expect today.

Most battles were over in a day or a few days, giving both sides an opportunity to regroup and do things like collecting and tending to wounded. The Overland campaign broke that pattern, the armies marched right from the Wilderness to Spotsylvania and beyond; medical services had to deal with a new rush of casualties on top of the ones from the previous battle.

 

[UKMarkw]

I'm sure it happened on both sides but I wouldn't think there was an express order not to treat enemy prisoners. Doctors would/should have been bound by the Hippocratic oath which would have superseded orders