by James Corbett
March 06, 2021
At first glance, bioethics might seem like just another branch of
ethical philosophy where academics endlessly debate other academics
about how many angels dance on the head of a pin in far-out, science
fiction like scenarios.
What many do not know,
however, is that the seemingly benign academic study of bioethics
has its roots in the
dark history of eugenics.
With that knowledge, the
dangers inherent in entrusting some of the most important
discussions about the life, death and health of humanity in the
a select few, become even more apparent.
Video at footnote
Bioethics is the study of the moral issues arising from medicine,
biology and the life sciences.
At first glance, bioethics might seem like just another branch of
ethical philosophy where academics endlessly debate other academics
about how many angels dance on the head of a pin in far-out, science
fiction like scenarios.
Imagine what's going to happen when we have a memory pill.
of all, you don't have to raise your hand but let's be honest:
who here's going to take it?
Memory Enhancing Drugs: Subject of
of a sport - it's a variant of polo that is I think played in
Afghanistan if I'm not mistaken - where the people ride on
Is it horses or camels? I don't know which. And they use
a - it's a dead goat or something - to, I don't know, whack the
polo ball or whatever it is. Now it's a dead - I think it's a
Maybe someone knows who studies sociology about this. So
it's not that the goat is experiencing pain. It's dead already.
And yet there is something grim about that practice, wouldn't
you agree? And yet it's not that the interests of that goat are
somehow not being considered.
Let's assume it was killed
painlessly before the match began.
The Ethical Use of Biotechnology:
Debating the Science of Perfecting Humans
I told you that a pill could change your judgment of what is
right and what is wrong. Or what if I told you that your sense
of justice could depend on what you had for breakfast this
You're probably thinking by now this sounds like
science fiction, right?
TEDxZurich – Molly Crockett – Drugs
bioethicists cannot be dismissed so lightly.
Their ideas are being
used by governments to assert control over people's bodies and to
enforce that control in increasingly nightmarish ways.
Lithium is a medication that in prescription doses treats mood
disorders in people with bipolar disorder or manic-depressive
And what these researchers found in Japan is that
lithium is present in trace amounts in the normal water supply
in some communities and in those communities they have a lower
And so they're really investigating whether trace
amounts of lithium can just change the mood in a community
enough to really in a positive way without having the bad
effects of lithium to really affect the mood and decrease the
suicide rate very interesting concept.
Lithium May Be Added To Our Water
You're raising tuitions at the University of California as
rapidly as they [sic] can and so the access that used to be
available to the middle class or whatever is just rapidly going
That's a trade-off society's making because of very, very
high medical costs and a lack of willingness to say, you know,
"Is spending a million dollars on that last three months of life
for that patient - would it be better not to lay off those 10
teachers and to make that trade off in medical cost?"
called the "death panel" and you're not supposed to have that
Gates: End-of-Life Care vs. Saving Teachers' Jobs
Even a short time
ago, talk about medicating the public through the water supply or
enacting death panels for the elderly still seemed outlandish.
But now that the
world is being plunged into hysteria over the threat of pandemics
and overburdened health care systems,
unspeakable topics are increasingly becoming part of the public
What many do not
know, however, is that the seemingly benign academic study of
bioethics has its roots in the dark history of eugenics.
knowledge, the dangers inherent in entrusting some of the most
important discussions about the life, death and health of humanity
in the hands of a select few become even more apparent.
This is a study of Bioethics
and the New Eugenics.
You are tuned in to
The Corbett Report.
On November 10,
2020, Joe Biden announced the members of a coronavirus task force
that would advise his transition team on setting COVID-19-related
policies for the Biden administration.
That task force
included Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a bioethicist and senior fellow at the
Center for American Progress.
why today I've named the COVID-19 Transition Advisory Board
comprised of distinguished public health experts to help our
transition team translate the Biden-Harris COVID-19 plan into
A blueprint that we can put in place as soon as Kamala
and I are sworn into office on January 20th, 2021.
President-elect Biden Delivers
Remarks on Coronavirus Pandemic
We've learned that a doctor from our area is on the
president-elect's task force. Eyewitness News reporter Howard
Monroe picks up the story.
he's a very bright, capable guy and i think that's a great
choice to represent doctors in general in addressing this
Philadelphia health commissioner Dr. Thomas Farley this morning
on Eyewitness News.
He praised president-elect Joe Biden's
transition team for picking Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel to join his coronavirus task force.
He is the chair of the Department of
Medical Ethics and Health Policy at the University of
UPenn Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel To Serve
On President-Elect Biden's Coronavirus Task Force
meant very little to the general public, who likely only know
Emanuel as a talking head on tv panel discussions or as the brother
of former Obama chief of staff and ex-mayor of Chicago, Rahm
But for those who have followed Ezekiel Emanuel's career as
a bioethicist and his history of advocating controversial reforms of
the American health care system, his appointment was an ominous sign
of things to come.
argued that the Hippocratic Oath is obsolete and that it leads
to doctors believing that they should do everything they can for
their patients rather than letting them die to focus on higher
He has argued that people should
choose to die at age 75 to spare society the burden of looking
after them in old age.
As a health policy advisor to the Obama
helped craft the Affordable Care Act, which fellow Obamacare
architect Jonathan Gruber admitted was only passed thanks to the
stupidity of the American public.
OK? Just like the people - transparency -
lack of transparency is a
huge political advantage.
And basically, you know, call it the
stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that
was really critical to getting the thing to pass.
3 Jonathan Gruber Videos: Americans "Too Stupid to Understand"
During the course
of the deliberations over Obamacare, the issue of "death panels"
Although the term "death panel" was immediately lampooned by
government apologists in the media, the essence of the argument was
one that Emanuel has long advocated: appointing a body or council to
ration health care, effectively condemning those deemed unworthy of
medical attention to death.
When I first
heard about you it was in the context of an article you wrote
right around the time that the Affordable Care Act was under
And the article was entitled "Principles
for the Allocation of Scarce Medical Interventions."
know how many of you remember there was a lot of talk at the
time about [how] this new Obamacare was going to create death
And he wrote an article which I thought should have been
required reading for the entire country about how rationing
medical care - you think that that's going to start with with
the Affordable Care Act?
Medical care is rationed all the time
and it must be rationed. Explain that.
are two kinds of "rationing," you might say.
One is absolute
scarcity leading to rationing and that's when we don't simply
don't have enough of something and you have to choose between
We do that with organs for transplantation. We don't
Some people will get it, other people won't and,
tragically, people will die. Similarly if we ever have a flu
pandemic - not if but when we have a flu pandemic - we're not
going to have enough vaccine, we're not going to have enough
respirators, we're not going to have enough hospital beds.
just going to have to choose between people.
Zeke Emanuel: Oncologist and Bioethicist
When the debate is
framed as an impersonal imposition of economic restraint over the
deployment of scarce resources, it is easy to forget the real nature
of the idea that Emanuel is advocating.
Excluded from these softball
interviews is the implicit question of who gets to decide who is
worthy of medical attention.
Emanuel's various proposals over the
years, and those of his fellow bioethicists, have usually supposed
that some government-appointed but somehow "independent" board of
bioethicists, economists and other technocrats, should be entrusted
with these life-and-death decisions.
If this idea seems
familiar, it's because it has a long and dark history that harkens
back to the eugenicists who argued that only the "fittest" should be
allowed to breed, and anyone deemed "unfit" by the
government-appointed boards - presided over by the eugenicists -
should be sterilized, or, in extreme cases, put to death.
.] But there are an extraordinary number of people whom I want
Not in any unkind or personal spirit, but it must be
evident to all of you - you must all know half a
dozen people, at least - who are no use in this world.
more trouble than they are worth.
And I think it would be a good
thing to make everybody come before a properly appointed board,
just as he might come before the income tax commissioner, and,
say, every five years, or every seven years, just put him there,
"Sir, or madam, now will you be kind enough to justify
Bernard Shaw talking about capital punishment
This is the exact
same talk of "Life
Unworthy of Life" that was employed in Nazi Germany as
justification for their Aktion
T4 program, which resulted in over 70,000 children, senior
citizens and psychiatric patients being murdered by the Nazi regime.
author and researcher Anton Chaitkin confronted Ezekiel Emanuel
about this genocidal idea.
we'll do the same format. It'll be three minutes and then time
for questions. We'll start with Mr. Chaitkin.
is] Anton Chaitkin.
I'm a historian and the history editor for
Executive Intelligence Review.
has put in place a reform apparatus reviving the euthanasia of
Hitler Germany in 1939 that began the genocide there.
apparatus here is to deny medical care to elderly, chronically
ill and poor people and thus save, as the president says, two to
three trillion dollars by taking lives considered "not worthy to
be lived" as the Nazi doctors said.
Emanuel and other avowed cost-cutters on this panel also lead a
propaganda movement for euthanasia headquartered at the Hastings
Center, of which Dr. Emanuel is a fellow.
They shape public
opinion and the medical profession to accept a death culture,
such as the Washington state law passed in November to let
physicians help kill patients whose medical care is now rapidly
being withdrawn in the universal health disaster.
movement for bioethics and euthanasia and this council's purpose
directly continue the eugenics movement that organized Hitler's
killing of patients and then other costly and supposedly
wrote last October 12 that a crisis, war and financial collapse
would get the frightened public to accept the program.
told Dr. Brandt in 1935 that the euthanasia program would have
to wait until the war began to get the public to go along.
Emanuel wrote last year that the hippocratic oath should be
junked; doctors should no longer just serve the needs of the
patient. Hoche and Binding, the German eugenicists, exactly said
the same thing to start the killing.
You on the
council are drawing up the procedures to be used to deny care
which will kill millions if it goes ahead in the present world
crash. You think perhaps the backing of powerful men,
financiers, will shield you from accountability, but you are now
in the spotlight.
council and reverse the whole course of this nazi revival now.
Obama's Genocidal Death Panel
Warned by Tony Chaitkin
It should come as
no surprise, then, that Emanuel emerged last year as the lead author
of a New England Journal of Medicine
article advocating for rationing COVID-19 care that was
later adopted by the Canadian Medical Association.
Allocation of Scarce Medical Resources in the Time of Covid-19,"
was written by Emanuel and a team of prominent bioethicists and
discusses "the need to ration medical equipment and interventions"
during a pandemic emergency.
recommendations include removing treatment from patients who are
elderly and/or less likely to survive, as these people divert scarce
medical resources from younger patients or from those with more
authors refrain from using the term, the necessity of setting up a
"death panel" to determine who should or should not receive
treatment is implicit in the proposal itself.
In normal times,
this would have been just another scholarly discussion of a
theoretical situation. But these are not normal times.
researcher and medical writer Rosemary Frei
documented at the time, the declared COVID crisis meant the
paper quickly went from abstract proposal to concrete reality.
back to that question about hospital care rationing, which is
such an important part of this story.
And it's one of those
things that when you read it at a surface level at first glance
sounds reasonable enough,
but the more that you look into it I think it becomes more
And you quote,
for example, specifically a March 23rd paper, "Fair
Allocation of Scarce Medical Resources in the Time of Covid-19,"
which was published in the prestigious
New England Journal of Medicine,
which calls for,
"maximizing the number of patients that survived
treatment with a reasonable life expectancy."
Which, again, I
would say sounds reasonable at first glance.
Yes, of course
we want to maximize the number of patients that survive. What's
wrong with that?
So what can you
tell us about this paper and the precedent that it's setting
Well it's all of a sudden changing the rules in terms of saying,
"Well, the most important thing is that it's the older people
get a lower place in terms of triaging."
And I point out
my article, also, that Canadians have a lot of experience
with SARS because we had that - there were a significant number
of deaths in Ontario because of it.
And there were people from
Toronto who had direct experience with SARS - which of course is
(ostensibly, at least) a cousin with the novel coronavirus - who
wrote triaging guidelines, or at least an ethical framework for
how to triage during a pandemic - this was in 2006 - they didn't
mention age at all.
And here we are 14 years later, every single
set of guidelines, including this really important
New England Journal of Medicine
"Well, age is an important criterion."
is what's interesting.
So this paper
is really important because - and also the Journal of the
American Medical Association, which is the official organ, I
would say, of the American Medical Association says the same
thing: it's age.
So they're all stepping in line and then the
Canadian Medical Association said,
"Oh, we don't have time to
put our own guidelines together so we'll just use this one from
the New England Journal of
To me, that's astonishing.
When I was a
medical writer and journalist, I did some work helping various -
one particular organization: the Canadian Thoracic Society,
which does, you know, chest infections and stuff. I helped them
put together guidelines.
There's a whole big set of
organizations for every single specialty for creating
don't have time to put together this..."
And also, I mean Canada
had a lot of experience with SARS, so we had a lot of this
"Oh, we can't do so it!"
So they gave totally -
they said we have to go with the recommendations from the
New England Journal of Medicine.
How the High Death Rate in Care
Homes Was Created on Purpose
like Emanuel are writing papers that are changing the rules for
rationing health care in the midst of a generated crisis should
hardly be surprising for someone whose brother infamously remarked
that you should never let a good crisis go to waste.
want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that,
it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do
Rahm Emanuel on the Opportunities of Crisis
But from a broader
perspective, it is not at all surprising that the concept of "death
panels" has been effectively smuggled in through the back door by
In fact, when you
start documenting the history of bioethics, you discover that this
is exactly what this field of study is meant to do: Frame the debate
about hot button issues so that eugenicist ideals and values can be
mainstreamed in society and enacted in law.
From abortion to
euthanasia, there isn't a debate in the medical field that wasn't
preceded by some bioethicist or bioethics institute preparing the
public for a massive change in mores, values and laws.
That research into
the history of bioethics leads one to the doorstep of the Hastings
Center, a nonprofit research center that,
according to its website,
"was important in establishing the
field of bioethics."
The founding director of the Hastings Center,
was a chairman of the American Eugenics Society from 1969 to
Meanwhile, Hastings cofounder
Daniel Callahan - who has
admitted to relying on Rockefeller Population Council and UN
Population Fund money in the early days of the center's work -
served as a director of the American Eugenics Society (rebranded
The Society for the Study of Social Biology) from 1987 to 1992.
previous Corbett Report guest Anton Chaitkin has
extensively documented, there is a line of historical continuity
connecting the promotion of eugenics in America by the Rockefeller
family in the early 20th century to the creation of the Hastings
Center in the late 20th century.
Chaitkin points out, was fostered by the Rockefeller-founded
Population Council as a front for pushing the eugenics agenda -
including abortion, euthanasia and the creation of death panels -
under the guise of "bioethics."
practices that we saw and discussions and preparations for
eugenics, which were going on in the United States in the early
1920s and earlier going back to the late 19th century - those
discussions were carried over - and the same discussions and
preparations in England - were carried over into Nazi Germany.
After the war - after World War II - people who had participated
in these movements wanted to keep the eugenics idea alive and
with the backing of particularly the Rockefeller Foundation -
which had backed Nazi eugenics before World War II in Europe -
they set up a population control movement that overlapped with
the Eugenics Society and with eugenics ideas.
And out of that
combination of eugenics and population control was born the
institutes and programs which are today at the heart of what's
called "bioethics," where you decide - so, supposedly decide -
ethical questions in a medical practice based on supposedly
So it's a
completely phony and morally disgusting field in general.
ill-born at the root of it and it's a practice which has never
confronted - in the medical community and in the academic
community that has this as part of its, you know, its practice -
they've never confronted the basis for the existence of this
Anton Chaitkin on the Eugenics /
The history of
bioethics connects the Rockefeller funding behind the first wave of
American eugenics, the Rockefeller funding behind the Kaiser Wilhelm
Institutes and the Nazi-era German eugenics program, and the
Rockefeller funding behind the Population Council, the Hastings
Center and other centers for post-war "crypto-eugenics" research.
a result, it is perhaps not surprising to find that many of the most
well-known and most controversial bioethicists working today are
associated with the Hastings Center.
Emanuel himself. In addition to being a
senior fellow at the John Podesta-founded Center for American
Progress - which was accused in a
2013 expose from The Nation
of maintaining "a revolving door" with the Obama administration and
running a pay-for-play operation for various industry lobbyists -
Emanuel is also a
Hastings Center fellow.
In fact, Emanuel's career as a
bioethicist was kickstarted by a November 1996
article in The Hastings Center
Report, which - after
praising Daniel Callahan's attempts to inject a debate about the
goals of medicine into the discussion of health care - highlighted a
point on which both liberals and communitarians can agree:
provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or
becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be
For "an obvious example" of this principle in action,
Emanuel then cites,
"not guaranteeing health services to patients
Just last year, The
Hastings Center hosted an online discussion about "What
Values Should Guide Us" when considering COVID-19 pandemic
restrictions in the United States, during which Emanuel opined that
big tech was not doing enough to share data about users' movements
with governments and researchers:
I have to say I've actually found Big Tech totally unhelpful so
far in this.
It's hard for me to see that they've done something
really, really helpful in this regard when it comes to COVID-19.
They have lots of capacity.
Facebook already knows
who you interact with on a regular basis; how close you've
gotten to them; when you leave your house; which stores you go
Google does the same. And they have not used this data.
Maybe they're afraid that people are going to be all upset, but
they haven't even been willing to give it to someone else to use
in an effective manner.
And I think either they're going to
become irrelevant in this process or they're going to have to
step up and actually be contributory to solving this problem.
Re-Opening the Nation: What Values
Should Guide Us?
Or take Hastings
Center fellow and University of Wisconsin-Madison bioethics
professor Norman Fost, who, in addition to questioning
whether it is "important
that organ donors be dead" in the
Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, made the case for
involuntary sterilization - the hallmark of the now universally
denounced American eugenics program - at a 2013 panel discussion on
"Challenging Cases in Clinical Ethics."
sterilization thing, if his sexual behavior can be attenuated so
that he's not a risk of impregnating anybody that would be the
But I don't think we should rule out sterilization
as being in his interest also, as well as potential victims of
his sexual assault.
sterilization has a bad reputation in America because of the
eugenic sterilization of a hundred thousand or more people with
developmental disabilities, most of them inappropriate.
overreaction to that... and Wisconsin leads the way at
overreacting to that.
We have a Supreme Court decision that says
you can never sterilize a minor until the legislature gives us
permission to do it and they never will and that's not in the
interest of a lot of kids with developmental disabilities for
whom procreation would be a disaster
- that is pregnancy or inflicting a pregnancy.
So if it's the
case that this fella is never going to be capable of being a
parent... and I can't tell quite that from the limited history
here and it may not be the case.
But I just want to say that the country's overreaction to
sterilization - like it's wrong, it's always terrible to
involuntarily sterilized somebody - is not true and it ought to
be at least on the table as something that might be in his
A Conversation About Challenging
Cases in Clinical Ethics
discussions are not limited to the ranks of the Hastings Center.
Dubbed a pioneer in the field of biomedical ethics by both
his critics and
apologists, Fletcher was the first professor of medical ethics
at the University of Virginia and co-founded the Program in Biology
and Society there.
In addition to his position as president of the
Euthanasia Society of America and
his work helping to establish the Planned Parenthood Federation,
Fletcher was also a
member of the American Eugenics Society.
1968 article in defense of killing babies with Down's syndrome
"or other kind[s] of idiot[s]," Fletcher wrote:
(what makes it precious) is not in life itself, intrinsically;
it is only extrinsic and bonum
per accident, ex casu –
according to the situation.
Compared to some things, the taking
of life is a small evil and compared to some things, the loss of
life is a small evil. Death is not always an enemy; it can
sometimes be a friend and servant."
Or take Peter
If there is any bioethicist in the world today whose name is
known to the general public it is Peter Singer, famed for his animal
Less well known to the public, however, are his
arguments in favor of
infanticide, including the notion that there is no relevant
difference between abortion and the killing of "severely disabled
infants," positions which have driven his critics to call him "Son
Although Singer is
extremely careful to frame his argument for infanticide using the
least controversial positions when speaking to the public.
"Look, the difficult decision is whether you want this
infant to live or not."
That should be a decision for the
parents and doctors to make on the basis of the fullest possible
information about what the condition is.
But once you've made
that decision it should be permissible to make sure that the
baby dies swiftly and humanely, if that's your decision. If your
decision is that it's better that the child should not live, it
should be possible to ensure that the child dies swiftly and
And so that's
what we proposed. Now, that's been picked up by a variety of
opponents, both pro-life movement people and people in the
militant disability movement - which incidentally didn't really
exist at the time we first wrote about this issue.
taken us as, you know, the stalking horse - the bogeyman, if you
like - because we're up front in saying that we think this is
how we should treat these infants.
The Case for Allowing Euthanasia of Severely Handicapped Infants
actual writings contain much bolder assertions that would be sure to
shock the sensibilities of the average person if they were plainly
Practical Ethics, for example, intended as a text for an
introductory ethics course, Singer dispenses with arguments about
severe handicaps and birth defects and talks more broadly about
whether it is fundamentally immoral to kill a newborn baby, noting
"a newborn baby is not an autonomous being, capable of making
choices, and so to kill a newborn baby cannot violate the principle
of respect for autonomy."
"It would, of course, be difficult to say at what age children
begin to see themselves as distinct entities existing over time" -
noting that "Even when we talk with two or three year old children
it is usually very difficult to elicit any coherent conception of
death" - we could provide an
"ample safety margin" for such concerns by deciding that "a full
legal right to life comes into force not at birth, but only a short
time after birth - perhaps a month."
Singer is by no
means alone in his profession in discussing this subject.
he's just part of a long line of bioethicists musing about exactly
where to draw the line when discussing infanticide.
Take Alberto Giubilini and
Francesca Minerva, two bioethicists working in
Australia who published a paper titled "After-birth
abortion: why should the baby live?" in
The Journal of Medical Ethics in
In that paper, they explicitly defend the practice of
infanticide on moral grounds, claiming that,
"The moral status of an
infant is equivalent to that of a fetus," and thus "the same reasons
which justify abortion should also justify the killing of the
potential person when it is at the stage of a newborn."
Lest they be
mistaken for forwarding the same old argument on killing severely
handicapped newborn babies that bioethicists have been making for
decades, the two are careful to add that their proposal includes,
"cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least)
acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk."
Unlike so many
other academic papers on this subject, however, this one was picked
up and widely circulated in the popular press, with even
establishment media outlets like The
Guardian insisting that "Infanticide
is repellent. Feeling that way doesn't make you Glenn Beck."
aback by the strong negative reaction to a scholarly article about
the moral permissibility of killing babies, the authors of the
responded by accusing the general public of being too ignorant
to understand the complex arguments made in the highly academic
field of bioethics:
When we decided
to write this article about after-birth abortion we had no idea
that our paper would raise such a heated debate.
You should have known!" people keep on repeating everywhere
on the web.
The answer is
very simple: the article was supposed to be read by other fellow
bioethicists who were already familiar with this topic and our
Professor Savulescu explains in
his editorial, this debate has been going on for 40 years.
Whatever else may
be said about the researchers' response, this was not a dishonest
defense of their work.
Julian Savulescu, the editor of
The Journal of Medical Ethics
that published the article, did
point out in
his own defense of the publication that the scholarly debate
about when it is permissible to kill babies goes back to at least
the 1960s, when Francis Crick,
the co-discoverer of the structure
of DNA and an
avowed eugenicist who proposed that governments should prevent
the poor and undesirable from breeding by requiring
government-issued licenses for the privilege of having a baby,
...proposed that children should only be
allowed to live if, after birth, they are found to have met
certain genetic criteria.
Indeed, the pages
of the medical ethics journals are filled with just such debates.
From Dan Brock's article on "Voluntary
Active Euthanasia," published in The Hastings Center Report in
1992, to John Hardwig's 1997 article in the pages of The Hastings
Center Report asking "Is
There A Duty to Die?" to Hastings Center Deputy Director Nancy
2008 pronouncement that,
"Allowing parents to practice
conscientious objection by opting out of vaccinating their children
is troubling in several ways,"
...these ethics professors toiling in a
hitherto unknown and unremarked corner of academia are having a
greater and greater effect in steering the policies that literally
mean the difference between life and death for people around the
In his prescient
1988 article on "The
Return of Eugenics," Richard J. Neuhaus observed:
medical ethicists and bioethicists, as they are called,
professionally guide the unthinkable on its passage through the
debatable on its way to becoming the justifiable until it is
finally established as the unexceptionable. Those who pause too
long to ponder troubling questions along the way are likely to
be told that "the profession has already passed that point."
truth, the profession is usually huffing and puffing to catch up
with what is already being done without its moral blessing. Indeed,
bioethicists are not, generally speaking, trained doctors,
researchers or medical workers.
As academics, they are forced to
take the word of doctors and researchers at face value.
Inevitably, it will be that of the WHO, the
AMA and other organizations whose work
- as even those within its ranks
admit - is not solely
dictated by medical need, but by the arbitrary whims of the
organizations' billionaire backers.
We are feeling the
effects of this now, when these bioethics professors are held up as
gurus who can not only provide medical advice, but actually lecture
the public on which medical interventions they are morally obligated
to undergo regardless of their own feelings about bodily autonomy.
Emanuel: Wearing a mask should be
as necessary as wearing a seatbelt
important to recognize that mandatory vaccination would not be
There are many mandatory policies, other coercive
policies - taxes are a form of coercion. Seatbelts were
originally voluntary and they were made mandatory because they
both reduce the risk of death to the wearer by 50% and also to
other occupants in the car.
But importantly some people
do die of seat belt
injuries, but the benefits vastly outweigh the risks.
in the world already have mandatory vaccination policies.
Australia the "no jab, no pay" policy involves withholding child
care benefits if the child isn't vaccinated. In Italy there are
fines. And in the US children can't attend school unless they're
All of these policies have increased vaccination
rates and have been implementable.
SOURCE: "Mandatory COVID-19 vaccination:
the arguments for and against": Julian Savulescu & Sam
of vaccination passport is almost inevitable.
With travel it's
virtually a given.
And you look at countries like Israel is now
introducing the green card. And all this is going on the
assumption that people that have been vaccinated are not going
to be able to spread the viruses easily, meaning they can't
transmit it and it's kind of looking like my read on the science
is it's looking like that is the case with most of the vaccines.
So that would be the question.
Now some people
say we absolutely can't do it, like, it's just not fair in a
democratic society because there's people that refuse - don't
want vaccines - and there's people that can't have vaccines.
here's the other side of the argument:
Is it really fair to the
Canadians that have been locked down for a year when they are
vaccinated - they're no longer a risk to other people - is it
really fair to continue to limit their freedom?
So you've kind
of got those two sides of it colliding.
SOURCE: 'Vaccination passports' a near
certainty says bio-ethicist | COVID-19 in Canada
From its inception,
the field of bioethics has taken its moral cue from the
card-carrying eugenicists who founded its core institutions.
these academicians of the eugenics philosophy, the key moral
questions raised by modern medical advances are always utilitarian
What is the value that forced vaccination or compulsory
sterilization brings to a community?
Will putting lithium in the
water supply lead to a happier society?
Does a family's relief at
killing their newborn baby outweigh that baby's momentary discomfort
as it is murdered?
Implicit in this
line of thinking are all of the embedded assumptions about what
defines "value" and "happiness" and "relief" and how these abstract
ideas are measured and compared.
The fundamental utilitarian
assumption that the individual's worth can or should be measured
against some arbitrarily defined collective good, meanwhile, is
rarely (if ever) considered.
The average person,
however - largely unaware that these types of questions are even
being asked (let alone answered) by bioethics professors in obscure
academic journals - may literally perish for their lack of knowledge
about these discussions.
All things being
equal, these types of ideas would likely be treated as they always
have been: as a meaningless parlor game played by ivory tower
academics with no power to enforce their crazy ideas. All things,
however, are not equal.
Perhaps taking a
page from the notebook of his brother, Rahm, about the utility of
crisis in effecting societal change, Ezekiel Emanuel
declared in 2011 that,
"we will get health-care reform only when
there is a war, a depression or some other major civil unrest."
didn't add "pandemic" to that list of excuses, but he didn't have
As the events of the past year have borne out, the public are
more than willing to consider the previously unthinkable now that
they have been told that there is a crisis taking place.
The erection of a biosecurity state.
first time, the eugenics-infused philosophers of bioethics are on
the verge of gaining real power.
And the public is still largely unaware of the discussions that
these academics have been engaged in for decades.
At the very least,
Bill Gates can relax now:
We can finally have the discussion on