 In addition, the only aid group they allowed to enter the region was the ICRC.  For these reasons, it was clear that they needed the mobility the MHUs afforded them to ensure basic services were offered to as many citizens in the occupied areas as possible.  
	The point above is reiterated multiple times in Du Mortier and Coninx's article: the reason why MHUs were deemed acceptable in this case is because they were used as the only option. Du Mortier and Coninx stress in their document that MHUs should not be used to substitute Ministry of Health programming, but to supplement those services only in exceptional situations where access is restricted, as a last resort, if you will.  They identify very specific targets that MHUs can be used to accomplish.

Substitution: As  described in the example above, where federal health programming is unable to reach citizens and IDPs, MHUs can be viewed as a temporary stopgap measure.  In this case, the organization is acting as a replacement of services for leaders.
Support: In these cases, MHUs are used as a supplemental clinic to help officials meet their goals.  This generally entails the establishment of common objectives between the government and the NGO which can realistically be supplemented in part by the use of MHUs.
Mobilization: In these cases, services are provided without the direct input of government officials.  Support is developed among third parties that can exert pressure on government officials to take over and provide services.

It is important to note that regardless of the underlying targets, MHUs must not be viewed as permanent solutions, due to the limitations in numbers of services provided and high operating costs.  In other words, MHUs are not viable stand-alone units that should be viewed as a part of the country's health infrastructure.  MHUS are specifically to be used when there is no other option, and retired once the situation has stabilized.
	There are many other considerations which are important to be aware of when deciding how and when to use MHUs.  Du Mortier and Coninx highlight a few of these.

MHUs are often more successful for vertical programming.  More specifically, MHUs are extremely good at screening and vaccinating for serious conditions that are slow to develop. Treatment for patients in the acute stage is not a recommended primary strategy for MHUs, largely due to the fact that they are only intermittently available for any population to access.  Obviously, MHUs will deal with acute illnesses in many cases, but this is not their strength and should not be viewed as a primary acute care tool in the planning stage.  This focus on preventative care is an important takeaway, and its usefulness in preventing communicable disease through screenings and vaccinations is a clear asset of this model.  To this point, Du Mortier and Coninx make the following caveat:

As indicated by the mention of triage above, staff in MHUs must be highly trained.  In addition, access to a nearby clinic for referral is critical. 