I'd say that is what they should do as distasteful as it may seem to us. If two western oriented countries were at war, would we want them choosing sides then? What if they decided that the U.S. was actually doing more harm than whatever other western country (in this hypothetical situation) and refused to help US soldiers? The thing is once you make the decision that one group (the taliban in this case) is so wicked that they do not deserve medical assistance then you have actively become a political organization and in any kind of situation or conflict the question arises "who is worthy of medical assistance based on their moral and political views? Is their morality in line with ours to such an extent that we will assist them? Where do their political views differ from ours? Will assisting them hinder political agenda A?" And who would be setting their moral and political compass that decides who they do and don't help?
You don't want a neutral medical organization being filled with political advocates and bureaucrats, or else they will cease to be even remotely effective as an organization, and will probably be even more morally abhorrent than what we perceive them to be now because of their actions.
You can find me on facebook as Markus Van Rijn, if you friend me just mention you're from VGchartz and who you are here.
