Wednesday, June 29, 2022
Google search engine
HomeNationalWhat the hell happened to Medical Ethics?

What the hell happened to Medical Ethics?


We are 100% independently owned, free from corporate ownership and control. Help support a free press by donating to us.

What is Medical Ethics?

Healers have been sworn to abide by a set of high moral values throughout history due to their trusted position and power over vulnerable people. Our first copies of the Hippocratic Oath from 275AD, state one guiding principle we can all still recognize today “I will abstain from all intentional wrong-doing and harm” usually paraphrased as

‘Do No Harm.’

The four pillars of modern medical ethics that are generally recognized now, include-

Beneficence- the healthcare provider should choose treatment that benefits the patient.

Non-maleficence- the treatment offered should not cause significant harm to the patient on balance, this includes infringement on privacy, dignity and human rights. 

Autonomy- the patient should be free to choose their medical treatment, free from coercion or threat. This also means the patient should be informed and fully understand the risks and benefits of any treatment offered. 

Justice- fair and just access to medical care, and medical care that on balance is fair to both society and the individual. This includes freedom from discrimination and upholding of human rights. 

What happens when medical ethics fail?

Due to the lack of human integrity acted out repeatedly throughout history, failures in medical ethics have been consistent resulting in negligence, discrimination, human rights violations, death and genocide. Individuals fail to abide by medical ethics, resulting in inexcusable injury and death of patients but when a society fails to implement and understand medical ethics the results are far more horrifying on a mass scale.

Nazi Germany is one of the most historically relevant events to medical ethics and whilst some declare that referring to it in the context of the current environment is ‘insensitive’ or ‘offensive’,  

those of us who see the early similarities use history as a dire warning to tread carefully. After all, those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. German society was not especially evil, the people were not exceptionally obedient, their medical personnel became healers for the same reasons our current medical personnel do… they were JUST LIKE US. So where did it all go wrong?

‘The Greater Good.’

Some of the worst crimes that occurred under Nazi rule were medical ‘experimentation’ on coerced (political prisoners were often offered but never given freedom for their ‘contribution’ to ‘experiments’) and non-consenting individuals. During the later Nuremberg trials, many excuses were used as moral justification one repeated throughout the trials was that ‘It was for the greater good of society.’ It was believed that horrifying tortures masquerading as ‘experimentation’ were justified. Sacrificing the individual rights of a small group of people to advantage the rest of their nation was considered acceptable especially when that group were not ‘like us’.


German society allowed segregation of one ‘offending group’ resulting in the eventual mass removal, starvation and genocide of that group. These groups included the Jewish population, homosexuals, the disabled, people with mental illness and political dissenters. How did segregation occur? First, with propaganda, the media and society demonised the undesirable group and sanctified the obedient and ‘loyal’ people. Next was segregation, special laws were made and social pressure encouraged to exclude the unwanted group. In 1933 Jewish businesses were boycotted and disincentivised. Jewish people were barred from national service, civil service and barred from the legal profession. Medical reimbursement by the state was no longer available when consulting Jewish doctors. Soon after Jewish children were excluded from German schools.

This process of ‘othering’ affected the medical profession in Germany profoundly. The people that eventually endured ‘selection’ were experimented upon, starved, used as slave labour and killed on mass were not ‘really’ people, they were not ‘like us’.

Why is this relevant now?

The current public health policies playing out throughout Australia are a drastic overstep of medical ethics. Those who have chosen to not receive the injection are being excluded from society. Step by step the Australian states and territory have made it impossible for the uninjected to engage in meaningful work, to provide for themselves and their families, exclude them from travel and public spaces. 

These public health policies overarchingly ignore the concepts of modern medical ethics 

Beneficence– The injections offered are of benefit to the individual only so much as they are at risk of serious harm or death from Covid-19 Virus. Where the vast majority of individuals are unlikely to become seriously unwell the elderly or chronically unwell may benefit from the treatment. Disappointingly, the ‘vaccination’ has not been found to effectively reduce transmission nor viral load and therefore is ineffective as a public health measure

Non-Maleificence– The injections can and do cause harm, the risk of adverse health events to the individual exists. And the risk may be higher in populations less likely to suffer severe complications from the virus itself especially children.

Autonomy– Despite the increasing data that the vaccines have limited benefit, can cause harm and are under ongoing safety and effectiveness data collection (only having been provisionally approved by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) for emergency use, the pressure to have the injections including intimidation, use of societal guilt and shame, and outright discrimination excluding the uninjected from social life and their chosen careers is ongoing and overwhelming. This coercion is completely contrary to the concept of bodily autonomy and the right of the person to a fully informed choice in treatment. 

Justice– Reducing the access of uninjected people to healthcare on any level is unjust. Removing their right to non-discrimination and access to the public space is a clear violation of their humanity. Stripping healthy humans of their right to refuse new, not fully tested, not fully approved medication that all parties acknowledge hold a risk to the health of the person and still feed their families is unjust and unwarranted from a health perspective. This discrimination, isolation and segregation of healthy, productive groups of humans is not healthy in any way. 

And all this is the name of “the greater good” and all because those who refuse have been grouped as the “other”.

Tread carefully. You may believe what happened in Nazi Germany happened due to the insanity, incompetence and general lack of ethics of the time. In truth, the doctors, nurses and public health officials tried in Nuremberg were neither mad nor incompetent and worse, they believed what they did was for the “greater good”. They believed they were morally right to kill, torture and disable the undesirables for the betterment of science and society. They were just “doing what they were told”, just “doing the right thing”, they trusted the authorities. 

Tread carefully. Individual liberty and autonomy are vitally important to societal good. And allowing the “othering” of any group, allows atrocities to happen in the name of “the greater good.” 



Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

- Advertisment -
Google search engine

Most Popular

Recent Comments

Ivan M. Paton on Approval Of Remdesivir
Beth on Free and Fair?
Novus Ordo Seclorum on Victorian Change to Mandates
Novus Ordo Seclorum on Health care in crisis
Novus Ordo Seclorum on Health care in crisis
Burnthehousedown on Postal vote outrage
Shanthini Balasuriyar on Queensland CHO – a law unto himself
Billie Hutton on Convoy to Canberra Two
Lynn a freedom warrior on Convoy to Canberra Two
Elizabeth on Ruble on the rise
Yvonne Ford on Pfizer drug recall
Gene Trevor Wyngaard on NZ Scrap vaccine mandates
Frances Mahy on Russia Sanctions The U.S.A
Peter Coxhead on My Story, So Far
Theodora Zajaz on Novak Out Of U.S. Open.
Leonie Young on Probuild Buy-Out
Shelley Madden on Pfizer, Stranger than Fiction
Debra Mullins on AVN vs Brendan Murphy
Malcolm on The End Game
Sabina on What’s Next?
Drew Duncan on Belarus Under Threat
Robyn on What’s Next?
Sofia Rutteman on Here We Go Again, Part 2
Robert Burns on Ricardo Bosi Public Address
Kim Henry on Pfizer Whistleblower
Lee Y on Give Me Five
Linda Nemeth on Ricardo Bosi Public Address
Warwick Hibble on Ricardo Bosi Public Address
Lesley on The Data Is Ours
Patricia Poppeliers on Here We Go Again, Part 2
Dani Stevens on Trouble in Paradise
Dianedraytonbuckland on Facebook: Judge, Jury and Executioner
Michael Chere on Before You Inject Your Child
Kerry Taylor on Which one of us is blind?
Kathy Hirsch on First Nations Locked Down
Gloria Feather on Undermining The Indigenous.
Marie Millikin on Let us talk about intuition.
Lucienne Helm on Let us talk about intuition.
Susan Wilson on The real revolution
Jennifer Leonard on 2020 a year to forget
F J on Strange Times
Tracey Parsons on IBAC DAY 9
stacie rose on Which one of us is blind?
Uncertainty on My Story, So Far
Tracey on A Veteran’s Plea
Zaidee Lens Van Rijn on My Story, So Far
Alissandra Moon on The Rise of Medical Apartheid
Peggy Gothe on Mum, I don’t feel well
Keith Cashman on Mum, I don’t feel well
Melinda c Taylor on Mum, I don’t feel well
Vaughan Oke on Which one of us is blind?
Jane Ramsay on Choice vs Ultimatum
Brian K Wilson on Which one of us is blind?
Scott Dawson on Which one of us is blind?