Not to put too fine a point on it, but my understanding is that, if medical personnel were to have carried weapons, they would have been in violation of international accords regarding non-combatants. The idea was that they were not armed, so the enemy was not supposed to fire on them. So, it wasn't just a matter of them not being issued weapons. They would have some real sh*t to sort out if they were caught carrying arms.
As for medics or corpsmen or what have you, I have no idea how it worked for them. But you said above that the man was a surgeon. A surgeon is not supposed to be any place where he would need a weapon, unlike a medic, who would be on the field of battle. You say your medics were armed, and I do not doubt you. Then again, there is only so much you can reasonably carry, so I wonder why a medic would want to carry weapons and ammo even if he could get hold of it. Maybe medics are considered fighting personnel (?).
I want to underscore that I am not an expert. You probably know more about all this than I do.
NOTE: I see you are Canadian. When you say "our medics," do you mean the Canadian Army?