Reclaiming Medical Ethics in the Age of COVID-19

What happened to them and where do we go from here? A reflection on autonomy, informed consent, and criticism.

The COVID-19 pandemic has illuminated the complexities of medical ethics, challenging healthcare professionals and patients alike to navigate the principles that govern medical interventions.

This exploration will delve into the Hippocratic Oath, the necessity of informed consent in medical procedures, and the critical discourse that has emerged during these unprecedented times.

In 1979, the American Philosophers Tom Beauchamp and James Childress, posited four principles of biomedical ethics. This came in the wake of a series of horrifying medical experiments that had abused participants in various ways. The Tuskegee Syphilis Study is perhaps the most notorious, where participants were not informed of their condition or the nature of the trial and, worse still, were not informed of or given treatment that would have saved their lives.

Clearly, some kind of ethical framework was needed, and Beauchamp and Childless’ principles offered a possible solution. The four principles were:

1. Respect for autonomy

2. Non-maleficence

3. Beneficence

4. Justice

Their book, Principles of Biomedical Ethics, has been widely influential and is in its 8th edition. Using these four principles, let’s assess the ethical landscape of modern medicine as it stands today, in the wake of perhaps the largest medical experiment ever run: the Covid-19 injection roll-out.

Respect for Autonomy: Informed Consent in Practice

This first principle mandates that patients should be free from coercion and manipulation, empowering them to make informed decisions about their healthcare. Informed consent involves several key elements:

• Adequate information: patients must receive sufficient information about the proposed intervention.

• Understanding: patients should comprehend the information provided.

• Voluntary decision: consent must be given freely, without pressure.

• Decision-making capacity: patients should be capable of making decisions regarding their health.

In the context of COVID-19, the rapid development and deployment of vaccines raised urgent questions about informed consent. If people had been told that they were part of an unfinished study on the first genetic experiment of humankind, how many would have consented? Were people adequately informed of the risks and benefits? Did they truly understand the implications of their choices? The ethical obligation to ensure informed consent has never been more critical, as highlighted by the ongoing debates surrounding vaccine mandates and public health policies.

Non-Maleficence: The Commitment to Do No Harm

The principle of non-maleficence, rooted in the Hippocratic Oath, emphasizes the obligation of healthcare providers to avoid causing harm to patients. This principle is particularly relevant in therapeutic contexts, where the potential side effects of treatments must be carefully weighed against their benefits.

During the pandemic, the urgency of vaccine rollouts and treatment protocols raised questions about the balance between rapid action and thorough safety evaluations. The ethical challenge lies in ensuring that interventions do not inadvertently cause harm, especially when the stakes are so high. We now know that the Covid-19 genetic injections are highly contaminated with Plasmid DNA, can integrate into our genome and carry an undeclared SV40 sequence in the case of Pfizer/Biontech, which is a cancer-promoting sequence.

Some may argue that the risk of Covid-19 killing millions outweighed any potential harms from administering the experimental ‘vaccines’. But, as has been extensively covered both in this Substack and by many others, predictions of mass deaths by Covid were based on dodgy models and actual real-world evidence was thin in the ground.

Beneficence: Promoting Patient Well-Being

The principle of beneficence complements non-maleficence by emphasizing the duty of healthcare providers actively to promote the well-being of patients. This demands careful analysis of the benefits and risks associated with medical interventions. In the context of COVID-19, healthcare professionals were charged with providing effective treatments while ensuring that interventions genuinely enhanced patient outcomes. The challenge has been to balance the urgency of addressing a so-called global health crisis with the ethical obligation to prioritize patient welfare.

Even if the Covid-19 ‘pandemic’ were a genuine crisis, as was assumed by most people at the time, one has to question just how much of a priority patient welfare really is. We saw people forcibly isolated from spouses, children, and parents, people dying and giving birth alone, while powerful supplements such as Vitamin D and repurposed drugs such as Ivermectin were withheld from the world population to ensure an emergency use approval of the injections.

Here, it appears that an agenda to get these injections approved, trumped any consideration of patient welfare. Perhaps the only attention given to welfare was as a bargaining chip for pushing emergency use authorisation through. Consider that the emergency approval was only guaranteed for creating immunity, which it never did. Indeed, it became clear early on that after a few months, the injections made you more likely to get COVID, not less. And yet, these injections are still on the market today.

Justice: Equity in Healthcare Access

The principle of justice calls for fairness in the distribution of healthcare resources and interventions. The ‘pandemic’ has exacerbated existing disparities in healthcare access, raising critical questions about equity. The ethical obligation to ensure that all individuals have equal access to treatments is paramount. This principle challenges us to consider how societal factors influence healthcare delivery and to advocate for policies that address these inequities. The moral imperative to provide care based on need rather than privilege has never been more pressing. Simple health advice like vitamin D supplementations, sterilizing nasal sprays and a sugar-free diet during infection would have been enough to control the infection worldwide. So, the future healthcare system must consider health promotion methods instead of gaining profits through new technologies like gene therapies (mRNA platform), which are incalculable risks for humanity and animals.

Conclusion

As we navigate the complexities of medical ethics in the age of COVID-19, it is essential to return to foundational principles. The interplay of autonomy, informed consent, non-maleficence, beneficence, and justice, as articulated by Beauchamp and Childress, must guide our decisions as we confront the challenges posed by the pandemic. The discourse surrounding these principles offers invaluable insights into the evolving landscape of medical ethics, reminding us of the importance of compassion, understanding, and equity in healthcare.

By reflecting on these principles, we can aspire to create a healthcare system that respects individual rights. We have been told continuously that it was for the greater good to stress the protection of the collective over the individual's rights. But was this ever true? Or were inhuman masking, social distancing, and lockdowns just methods to push an agenda and control the masses? The lessons learned during this pandemic will undoubtedly shape the future of medical ethics and practice for years to come.

---