This post speaks to the growing discussion around the possibility of enforced vaccinations.
I am neither anti vaccination nor pro vaccination; I am a strong advocate for medical freedom. I choose to live free from fear and manipulation – I choose personal autonomy, and I align with democratic values in the truest sense of what that means. I believe in the freedom to express opinions even while they may not accord with the general consensus, or the (often subtly imposed) social rules.
I believe that people are responsible for each other, however when that in-born human quality is used as a weapon by potentially nefarious agendas and becomes a tool of emotional manipulation, and social control, I will question that authority. When the shadow side of social responsibility, in the name of the ‘greater good’ is at the expense of personal autonomy and human rights, I will challenge the legitimacy of the consciousness that upholds that.
As we move into the age of Aquarius, we are all responsible for deciding whether to express the positive characteristics of that age – the very best of humanitarian values, kindness and genuine altruism – or not. The shadow side of the new age may be a denial of individual rights sanctioned by totalitarian governments and global institutions that serve only the few.
Like nuclear power, medical and technological advancement can be used responsibly or not. This progress may be employed by philanthropic agendas that honour the basic tenets of life, or else the so-called philanthropic agendas that only appear to be serving life while assuming more social control and imposing of technocratic law.
I am inspired by the Nuremberg Code of 1948 that lists ten points in a code of ethics toward medical freedom.
The Nuremberg Code was never fully acknowledged as law however along with several other documents it influenced good clinical practice (GCP).
“Nonetheless, its influence on global human-rights law and medical ethics has been profound. Its basic requirement of informed consent, for example, has been universally accepted and is articulated in international law in Article 7 of the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966). Grodin MA, Annas GJ. Legacies of Nuremberg: medical ethics and human rights.
The first point clearly states the need for consent.
The ten points of the Nuremberg Code
The ten points of the code were given in the section of the verdict entitled “Permissible Medical Experiments”
- The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.
- The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.
- The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment.
- The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.
- No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.
- The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.
- 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.
- During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgment required of him that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.