Posted on 03/31/2022 11:23:27 AM PDT by Heartlander
In the 1930s, German medicine and German healthcare institutions were widely considered the most advanced in the world. However, subtle but enormously consequential shifts had been underway decades before Hitler came to power, starting with the rise of the eugenics movement in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
In 1922, Alfred Hoche and Karl Binding, a psychiatrist and a lawyer, published an influential book, Allowing the Destruction of Life Unworthy of Life. A metaphor from this and other influential works captured the imagination of the German medical establishment, undermining the traditional Hippocratic ethic that had governed medicine since antiquity.
Instead of serving the health of the individual patient presenting for treatment, German physicians were encouraged to be responsible for the “health” of the “social organism”—the volk—as a whole.
Instead of seeing afflicted individuals as sick and in need of compassionate medical care, German doctors became agents of a socio-political program driven by a cold and calculating utilitarian ethos. If the social organism was construed as healthy or sick, some individuals (e.g., those with cognitive or physical disabilities) were characterized as “cancers” on the volk. And what do doctors do with cancers but eliminate them?
The first people gassed by the Nazis were not Jews in concentration camps (that came later), but disabled patients in psychiatric hospitals, murdered under the Third Reich’s “T4 Euthanasia Program.” Each of these death warrants was signed by a German physician. Even after the lethal regime turned its attention on Jews and other ethnic minorities, they continued to deploy quasi-public health justifications: Recall that the Jews were routinely demonized by the Nazis as “spreaders of disease.” If physicians serve not the needs of sick and vulnerable patients, but are agents of a social program, the German example shows us what happens when that social program is misdirected by a corrupt regime.
When the atrocities of the Nazi doctors were revealed at the postwar Nuremberg trials, the world rightly condemned German physicians and scientists who participated. That their actions were legal under the Nazi regime was not an adequate defense; these doctors were convicted at Nuremberg for crimes against humanity. To avoid such disasters in the future, the central principle of research ethics and medical ethics—namely, the free and informed consent of the research subject or patient—was then clearly articulated in the Nuremberg Code. Here is the first of 10 points articulated in the Code:
The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.
This principle was further developed in the Helsinki Declaration of the World Medical Association, the Belmont Report commissioned by the U.S. Federal Government in the 1970s, and subsequently codified under the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations in the “Common Rule,” the law governing human-subjects research in the United States.
Fast forward to 2020. In the face of the novel coronavirus, and the fears generated by media propaganda, the principle of free and informed consent was once again abandoned. The most egregious, but my no means the only, example was vaccine mandates enacted while the vaccines were still under emergency-use authorization, and, thus, by our federal government’s own definition, “experimental.”
How and why was the bulwark of 20th-century medical ethics abandoned so quickly, and with so little opposition from the medical and scientific establishment? What were the immediate effects? What will be the long-term, consequences of the shift back to a crass utilitarian ethic governing science, medicine, and public health during a pandemic?
"Under an EUA, FDA may allow the use of unapproved medical products, or unapproved uses of approved medical products in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions when certain statutory criteria have been met, including that there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives."
-Emergency Use Authorization for Vaccines Explained
Is this why Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin (used with zinc) were ignored and/or dismissed as “adequate, approved, and available alternatives?” It does make you wonder…
Heartlander wrote: “Is this why Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin (used with zinc) were ignored and/or dismissed as “adequate, approved, and available alternatives?” It does make you wonder…”
Wonder no more. HCL and Ivermectin were never shown to be effective against COVID.
1) A society can have a Culture of Death - this is often apparent in having a focus on non-reproductive topics (homosexuality, abortion, euthanasia, etc.) It is better to be a Culture of Life.
2) The Individual should always be valued as the key contributor to mankind. The group -- the Collective, or Tribe -- should never have rights. Only individuals have rights and value. If you focus on individualism, you can never have Socialism.
The US is increasingly concerned with the Collective and with Death.
Talk to the folks in Africa who've been saved by taking them.
I’d really like to see a Nuremberg 2023, where all those who have inflicted such terrible damage on our country socially, financially, and politically are held accountable for their misdeeds.
“Wonder no more. HCL and Ivermectin were never shown to be effective against COVID.”
Neither were the jabs . . .
SkyDancer wrote: “Talk to the folks in Africa who’ve been saved by taking them.”
Show me where HCL or Ivermectin saved any lives in Africa.
JackFromTexas wrote: “Neither were the jabs . . .”
The vaccines have saved over a million lives in the US alone.
That is complete BS.
These injections have done nothing positive, and in fact are deadly.
Go back to your home planet.
"The great weight of the evidence before us to effect that certain types of medical experiments on human beings, when kept within reasonably well-defined bounds, conform to the ethics of the medical profession generally. The protagonists of the practice of human experimentation justify their views on the basis that such experiments yield results for the good of society that are unprocurable by other methods or means of study. All agree, however, that certain basic principles must be observed in order to satisfy moral, ethical and legal concepts:"
"The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision."
"The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs, or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity."
"The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury."
"Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability or death."
"The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment."
"During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible."
Wrong. Hydroxychloriquine well protected me as I daily dealt with dozens of ‘positive Covid 19’ Patients, up close and personal.
Yeah, I was safely protected from an absolutely crock of shit Virus that killed not nearly as many as the Big Pharma Vaccines killed.
The information is out there; do your research and get back.
PS: From your posts I know you’re a pro-vaxx anti ivermectin/Hydro. or any other OTC meds such as zinc, K2-D3 and vit.c.
Thanks to RA, and my medication, I was protected from the man made ‘virus’ dubbed ‘Covid 19’ which never at afflicted me though I dealt with more victims than did just about anyone, especially Physicians.
BTT
Ping
Bookmark
‘The vaccines have saved over a million lives in the US alone.’
such a claim should have reams of corroborative evidence...produce such, if you please...
What a liar you are
Why don’t you take your propagandist lies and go away? If you do not KNOW that the protocols saved more lives than the vaccines, you are intentionally obtuse.
90% of all deaths in 2021 to the present were in the Clot shot community. Overall the death rate for Covid-19 is around 1%. There was never a pandemic, but there was an epidemic of fear.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.