Medical ethics

 There are four main principles of medical ethics,

Autonomy – the patient has the right to refuse or choose his or her treatment. This is rooted in society’s respect for individuals’ ability to make informed decisions about personal matters with freedom.

Beneficence – a practitioner should act in the best interest of the patient and family. In other words, healing is the aim of medicine.

Non-maleficence – not to be the cause of harm. Many consider this should be the primary consideration, that it is more important not to harm your patient than to do him good, which is part of the Hippocratic oath that doctors take.

Justice – concerns the fair distribution of scarce health resources, and the decision as to who gets what treatment.

Writing in TCW Guy Hatchard speaks of the situation in New Zealand pointing out that, because of their closed borders, they have had only 18,000 cases to date and 53 deaths in a population of  5 million. However, they have had, by official count, 50,000 adverse events from the "vaccines" and over 130 deaths. 

Lets examine those numbers, the case fatality rate (CFR) for the actual virus is .003, for the "vaccines" the CFR is, surprise, .003 but no medical practitioner has raised this matter and the government of New Zealand, as does ours, continues to say the "vaccines" are safe and effective.

What is safe and effective about a cure that kills people at the same rate as the disease?

There is a serious deficit in medical ethics almost everywhere. Autonomy is out the window, coercion is the flavour of the day. Maleficence abounds, harm is being done not only through the "vaccines" but through inane mask mandates and lockdowns. Beneficence is nowhere to be found, doctors bow to the demands of the government not to the needs of their patients.

The medical fraternity needs to grow a pair and say to the government - what you are doing is doing harm to our patients and needs to stop. I doubt that that will occur, but it should if doctors are living up to their oath.

Precautionary Principle vs First, Do No Harm

“Scientists are doing an awful lot of damage to the world in the name of helping it. I don’t mind attacking my own fraternity because I am ashamed of it.” –Kary Mullis, Inventor of Polymerase Chain Reaction, Nobel Laureate

The precautionary principle is simple, if there might be a risk involved don't do whatever it is you are proposing to do or if you perceive a possible risk mitigate against that risk real or not. That's a poor way to live life. It is however, the way the government, that is, government scientists, government officials and the government itself, approached the risks of the Covid pandemic and health professionals and officials have let them, if not cheered them on. And then they abandoned the principle when the "vaccines" came on the scene.

What then of the Hippocratic Oath? The precept, "first do no harm" is not found in that oath. What the original oath does say is, "With regard to healing the sick, I will devise and order for them the best diet, according to my judgment and means; and I will take care that they suffer no hurt or damage.". It goes on, "Nor shall any man's entreaty prevail upon me to administer poison to anyone; neither will I counsel any man to do so." Those two sentences encompass "first do no harm".

The precautionary principle and the precept are not mutually exclusive nor are they the same. Instead they complement each other when properly applied.The problem with the principle is that it has one dimension, is there or might there be, a risk in doing what ever it is you propose to do. It fails to take into account the effect of not doing something. That is where the precept comes into play. Will either course of action or non-action actually cause harm versus a possible risk of harm.

When COVID first emerged in Canada little was known about it and the early precautions seemed reasonable and prudent. However as time went on and knowledge increased the restrictions appeared to me at least and to others. ill directed and scattershot. COVID presents a known risk, primarily to the elderly. The risk to young people is low and to children virtually nil. Yet the government proceeded as though everyone was at risk and to same degree. No risk assessment was undertaken or if it was the results were not communicated to the public. It was clear that the harm produced by the ongoing restrictions was greater than that from the disease itself. The government doubled down, violating the law of holes, when you're in one stop digging.

The first precautions applied the precautionary principle but the later actions of the government violated the precept, it was clear that harm was being done.

Lets talk about the "vaccines", the principle and the precept.

The government has taken the view that the "vaccines" are safe and effective, so sayeth the CDC, and everyone should be "vaccinated". This in the face of clear evidence that the vaccines are a risk for some age groups, studies in Israel and the UK show high risk to young males and children, and advice directly from the manufacturer of at least one of the "vaccines" that they should not be administered to children. Further, the efficacy of the "vaccines" wane significantly in the matter of a few weeks whereas real vaccines, such as smallpox and polio provide protection and immunity that the COVID "vaccines" do not. So much for do no harm

Again no risk assessment has been done and applying the precautionary principle the government is proceeding as though we are all open to the same degree of risk. The evidence from the Swedish experience and the government's own data show that that is not the case. The vast majority of deaths in BC are in the over 70's, the vast majority of cases are in the over 20, under 50's. If the BC government had applied the Swedish approach, protect the elderly and vulnerable and let the rest get on with their lives then the economy would not be in a shambles and great harm could have been averted.

Even worse, the government is treating Omicron the same as all the other variants. The data does not support that assessment. Cases are up significantly, active cases are also up but deaths are way down and the case fatality rate is the lowest it's ever been. But we knew that this would be the case from the outset because the South African authorities told us so, more transmissible but less severe. Yes, there are more hospitalizations but the rate of hospitalization is declining.

The BC government is quick to apply the precautionary principle but ignores the precept. As a result many small businesses and young workers have been irrevocably harmed, children are being harmed by the constant wearing of masks in school and other places and thousands may be disabled through  unnecessary and harmful "vaccination".

 

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive." – CS Lewis