When someone claims to be fighting ‘for your freedoms’ but does not defend your right to free medical consent in all circumstances, including ALL vaccines, or does not defend your right to life by denouncing coercion or pressure to undergo any medical procedure where a percentage of people are likely to die as a result of the procedure, then they are not really fighting for your freedoms.
Acquiescence to medical coercion, even if the mandated procedure were medically harmless, creates a precedent for the next mandated procedure, which may be harmful either by negligence or by design. Once this door is open, anything goes.
This letter from AMPS does not fill me with confidence in the medical profession; on the contrary. Even those doctors who dissent from AHPRA’s dictatorial position on independent medical advice, are still ignoring the elephant in the room: the taking away of the right to FREE medical consent by means of medical mandates, and the violation of the right to life by coercing people to undergo a medical procedure where a small percentage of people are expected to die as a direct result of the procedure. Do better AMPS, you know the rules. http://npaq-8630368.hs-sites.com/covid-19-an-update-of-evidence-based-information
Letter to AMPS (14.08.2022)
Dear Jeyanthi and AMPS,
I just came across the letter from AMPS to “The Australian Colleges and Associations of Medicine, Health, and Science, and All Australian Federal, State, and Territory Senators and Members of Parliament”.
This effort does not fill me with confidence in the medical profession. On the contrary, it tells me that even those doctors who dissent from AHPRA’s dictatorial position on independent medical advice are still ignoring the elephant in the room: the taking away of the right to FREE medical consent by means of medical mandates, and the violation of the right to life by coercing people to undergo a medical procedure where a small percentage of otherwise healthy people are expected to die as a direct result of that procedure.
Do better AMPS, you know the rules.
I have outlined all the relevant ethical arguments on my new Substack page, for those who want to take an ethical rather than utilitarian (risk vs benefits) approach to vaccine mandates. Please take a look below and I hope that based on this input you will formulate a stronger position, in line with fundamental principles. https://michaelkowalik.substack.com
I note that AMPS is a professional association centred on Doctor’s Rights, so I do understand that your job is not about serving the interests of the general population. I nevertheless suggest that by taking a broader ethical stance against medical coercion you would gain trust FOR the profession you represent and thus yourselves become trustworthy and respectable as a professional institution.
On a side note, arguing medical science against the medical practitioner regulatory authority is about as hopeful as arguing religion against God. A simple argument from ethical principles is the only reasonable line of defence for disagreeing with regulatory diktats, because experts do not have authority over moral conscience.
Good luck,
Michael Kowalik
Dear Jeyanthi and AMPS,
I just came across the letter from AMPS to “The Australian Colleges and Associations of Medicine, Health, and Science, and All Australian Federal, State, and Territory Senators and Members of Parliament”.
This effort does not fill me with confidence in the medical profession. On the contrary, it tells me that even those doctors who dissent from AHPRA’s dictatorial position on independent medical advice are still ignoring the elephant in the room: the taking away of the right to FREE medical consent by means of medical mandates, and the violation of the right to life by coercing people to undergo a medical procedure where a small percentage of otherwise healthy people are expected to die as a direct result of that procedure.
Do better AMPS, you know the rules.
I have outlined all the relevant ethical arguments on my new Substack page, for those who want to take an ethical rather than utilitarian (risk vs benefits) approach to vaccine mandates. Please take a look below and I hope that based on this input you will formulate a stronger position, in line with fundamental principles. https://michaelkowalik.substack.com
I note that AMPS is a professional association centred on Doctor’s Rights, so I do understand that your job is not about serving the interests of the general population. I nevertheless suggest that by taking a broader ethical stance against medical coercion you would gain trust FOR the profession you represent and thus yourselves become trustworthy and respectable as a professional institution.
On a side note, arguing medical science against the medical practitioner regulatory authority is about as hopeful as arguing religion against God. A simple argument from ethical principles is the only reasonable line of defence for disagreeing with regulatory diktats, because experts do not have authority over moral conscience.
Good luck,
Michael Kowalik
Pagan fascism has “reimagined” itself from the Blood & Soil motif to a new, modernised and juicy, more inclusive vision: Psyche & Soil. Watch the carrot; follow the stick.
Remember how the prominent rebel doctors were claiming that by the end of 2021 most people would be dead from ADE? Remember how almost every month someone on your favourite fear porn channel shared “secret intel” that medical martial law is coming next month, permanent lockdown etc. Not even an apology or admission of being wrong, just moving along as if nothing happened. And people are still believing these channels, and sharing the next made up story. The names of the rebel youtube doctors are escaping me now, but the video channels like Stew Peters, Highwire, Zeee Media have about as much credibility as Alex Jones, and there are hundreds of less popular clones sharing the same stories. Don’t be a sucker.
If Martial Law were ever implemented, nothing could be done by the civilian population apart from going into hibernation, playing dead. Modern military has the absolute upper hand, but martial law cannot be sustained for a long time, it paralyses the economy, it kills public confidence, and these are necessary to sustain the State and the military as well. The fear of suffering is more effective at controlling the population than the suffering itself, which once realised loses its function as a psychological control mechanism. Actual suffering is liberating from the trauma of suspense, from the prolonged fear of suffering, and this in turn gives rise to fearless courage. The ruling power cannot afford to make this radical move in vain because it would ultimately diminish their own power. The “rumours of war” are the war, for your mind.
I have received a response from AMPS to my letter https://news.1rj.ru/str/NormalParty/1790, saying they “strongly advocate for true informed consent” as outlined in this document: https://amps.redunion.com.au/healthreformdeclaration My reply to this will be posted below.
Telegram
Normal
Letter to AMPS (14.08.2022)
Dear Jeyanthi and AMPS,
I just came across the letter from AMPS to “The Australian Colleges and Associations of Medicine, Health, and Science, and All Australian Federal, State, and Territory Senators and Members of Parliament”.…
Dear Jeyanthi and AMPS,
I just came across the letter from AMPS to “The Australian Colleges and Associations of Medicine, Health, and Science, and All Australian Federal, State, and Territory Senators and Members of Parliament”.…
My response to AMPS (16.08.2022)
I am glad you are addressing the issue of patient consent. There is nevertheless a crucial distinction between “informed consent” and “free consent” (without coercion). On my reading of your document, the issue of coercion (economic or social-opportunity discrimination) applied to patient consent is not emphasised.
The strongest statement on this question in your document reads as follows:
“The restoration of Informed Consent to the Australian Community.
The restoration of a Health Practitioner’s duty to afford the Australian Community Informed Consent free from interference.”
This implies that availability of information and patient-doctor communication should not be impeded by regulators and the government, but says nothing about the importance of non-coercion for patient consent. This I believe is the central ethical issue, which arguably becomes a criminal matter when medical coercion is likely to cause deaths of some non-freely consenting patients. Also, when a medical practitioner is aware that a patient is subject to state coercion to accept a medical procedure (therefore not able to give consent freely), even if the freedom of medical communication is unimpeded, the medical practitioner could also be liable for administering the (known to be coerced) procedure.
My suggestion is therefore to be explicit in emphasising ‘free (uncoerced) medical consent’.
I am happy to help with this, if you like.
I am glad you are addressing the issue of patient consent. There is nevertheless a crucial distinction between “informed consent” and “free consent” (without coercion). On my reading of your document, the issue of coercion (economic or social-opportunity discrimination) applied to patient consent is not emphasised.
The strongest statement on this question in your document reads as follows:
“The restoration of Informed Consent to the Australian Community.
The restoration of a Health Practitioner’s duty to afford the Australian Community Informed Consent free from interference.”
This implies that availability of information and patient-doctor communication should not be impeded by regulators and the government, but says nothing about the importance of non-coercion for patient consent. This I believe is the central ethical issue, which arguably becomes a criminal matter when medical coercion is likely to cause deaths of some non-freely consenting patients. Also, when a medical practitioner is aware that a patient is subject to state coercion to accept a medical procedure (therefore not able to give consent freely), even if the freedom of medical communication is unimpeded, the medical practitioner could also be liable for administering the (known to be coerced) procedure.
My suggestion is therefore to be explicit in emphasising ‘free (uncoerced) medical consent’.
I am happy to help with this, if you like.
Informed Consent, no matter how well informed the patient might be, amounts to nothing if the patient is economically or socially coerced to accept the procedure irrespective of the relevant information. Consent must be FREE, not coerced, before the information about the medical risks vs benefits would be a sufficient condition of consent.
Email to Human Rights Commissioner AHRC (16.08.2022)
Subject: Vaccine mandates infringe on the right to life
infoservice @ humanrights . gov . au
Ms Lorraine Finlay
Human Rights Commissioner
Australian Human Rights Commission
Dear Commissioner,
I am a philosopher of ethics and the leading voice in the academic debate questioning the ethical permissibility of vaccine mandates. I recently published on this topic in the BMJ Journal of Medical Ethics (cited below). I submit that vaccine mandates, or any systemic discrimination against the unvaccinated, infringes on human rights, including the right to life. This conclusion is based on the following grounds:
1. Vaccine mandates imply that all humans are born in a defective, inherently harmful state that must be biotechnologically augmented to allow our unrestricted participation in society, and this constitutes discrimination on the basis of healthy, innate characteristics of the human race. This devaluation of the innate human constitution is not only universally dehumanising, but it perverts the very concept of human rights; discrimination against the unvaccinated implies that our innate human constitution is no longer a guarantee of full human rights. This point derives from my paper published here: https://jme.bmj.com/content/48/4/240.
2. Any discrimination against the unvaccinated is economic or social opportunity coercion, precluding the possibility of free medical consent. The right to free, uncoerced medical consent is not negotiable, under any circumstances, because without it we have no rights at all; every other right (including the right to life) can be subverted by medical coercion. Free medical consent is the most fundamental protection from crimes against humanity being committed under the guise of healthcare (several instances of such abuses have occurred in this century).
3. Vaccines are known to occasionally cause deaths of healthy people. When an employee is required to receive vaccination as a condition of employment, that employee is economically coerced to participate in an activity where some percentage of employees are expected to die ‘in the course of employment’ as a direct result of the mandated activity. This goes against the fundamental principles of medical ethics and workplace safety. It may be objected that infectious pathogens also kill people, but these two categories of deaths are not ethically equivalent. Infection with a pathogen for which there exists a vaccine is not mandated, whereas deaths resulting from mandatory vaccination are mandated deaths, a legalised killing of some people for the prospective benefit of the majority. Critically, any discrimination against the unvaccinated amounts to a violation of the right to life by coercing people to undergo a medical procedure where a small percentage of otherwise healthy people are expected to die as a direct result of that procedure.
An earlier version of these arguments were formally submitted to the Inquiry into Public Health Amendment Bill 2021 (No 2) ACT and subsequently published here: https://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2022/04/26/medethics-2022-108229.responses#fundamental-values-are-not-defeated-by-utilitarian-calculus
I suggest that we are facing a human rights emergency and the outlined issues call for immediate administrative action.
I am available for collaboration.
Sincerely,
Michael Kowalik
https://philpeople.org/profiles/michael-kowalik
Subject: Vaccine mandates infringe on the right to life
infoservice @ humanrights . gov . au
Ms Lorraine Finlay
Human Rights Commissioner
Australian Human Rights Commission
Dear Commissioner,
I am a philosopher of ethics and the leading voice in the academic debate questioning the ethical permissibility of vaccine mandates. I recently published on this topic in the BMJ Journal of Medical Ethics (cited below). I submit that vaccine mandates, or any systemic discrimination against the unvaccinated, infringes on human rights, including the right to life. This conclusion is based on the following grounds:
1. Vaccine mandates imply that all humans are born in a defective, inherently harmful state that must be biotechnologically augmented to allow our unrestricted participation in society, and this constitutes discrimination on the basis of healthy, innate characteristics of the human race. This devaluation of the innate human constitution is not only universally dehumanising, but it perverts the very concept of human rights; discrimination against the unvaccinated implies that our innate human constitution is no longer a guarantee of full human rights. This point derives from my paper published here: https://jme.bmj.com/content/48/4/240.
2. Any discrimination against the unvaccinated is economic or social opportunity coercion, precluding the possibility of free medical consent. The right to free, uncoerced medical consent is not negotiable, under any circumstances, because without it we have no rights at all; every other right (including the right to life) can be subverted by medical coercion. Free medical consent is the most fundamental protection from crimes against humanity being committed under the guise of healthcare (several instances of such abuses have occurred in this century).
3. Vaccines are known to occasionally cause deaths of healthy people. When an employee is required to receive vaccination as a condition of employment, that employee is economically coerced to participate in an activity where some percentage of employees are expected to die ‘in the course of employment’ as a direct result of the mandated activity. This goes against the fundamental principles of medical ethics and workplace safety. It may be objected that infectious pathogens also kill people, but these two categories of deaths are not ethically equivalent. Infection with a pathogen for which there exists a vaccine is not mandated, whereas deaths resulting from mandatory vaccination are mandated deaths, a legalised killing of some people for the prospective benefit of the majority. Critically, any discrimination against the unvaccinated amounts to a violation of the right to life by coercing people to undergo a medical procedure where a small percentage of otherwise healthy people are expected to die as a direct result of that procedure.
An earlier version of these arguments were formally submitted to the Inquiry into Public Health Amendment Bill 2021 (No 2) ACT and subsequently published here: https://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2022/04/26/medethics-2022-108229.responses#fundamental-values-are-not-defeated-by-utilitarian-calculus
I suggest that we are facing a human rights emergency and the outlined issues call for immediate administrative action.
I am available for collaboration.
Sincerely,
Michael Kowalik
https://philpeople.org/profiles/michael-kowalik
👍1
If we disallow the innate human constitution as the objective basis of human rights, then we are giving up human rights completely. We may have other rights, privileges granted to us by an authority, but these are no longer secured by any fixed, universal point of reference but are a matter of judgment by powerful people, which can be then freely abused according to their desires, and this is precisely why we conceived of objectively grounded human rights in the first place.
Gender reassignment surgery is ethically equivalent to body thinning surgery on anorexics. It amounts to surgical mutilation of psychologically vulnerable people.
Normal people believe, correctly, that consent is necessarily Free consent, without any coercion. The authorities believe that when you are not pinned down and forcibly injected but only partially/economically coerced, this still leaves room for valid consent, so this ambiguity in the meaning of “consent” needs to be addressed, made explicit and resolved. Partial consent is practically meaningless, because only free, non-coerced consent can protect you from crimes against humanity, from abuse. Any crack in the scope of consent can be exploited against you.
Forwarded from Beach
If any person were to apply the concept of consent as preached by health 'authorities' and practiced by the injectors in the covid farce, but in the context of sexual relations, they would be charged with rape.
If a doctor knows that a person has to accept a medical procedure to keep their job, keep their house, or they will lose their profession and become homeless, is it perhaps ethically equivalent to two thugs bringing a distressed, battered woman to a doctor, asking for an abortion, because the two guys will harm her if she does not do that. What would be the liability for the doctor to comply with her request being clearly made under duress? Would it be just an ethical liability to agree to perform an abortion under these circumstances or also a criminal liability?
“Gender theory” is conceptually weaker than Flat Earth theory. Flat earthers are at least committed to resolving their conceptual inconsistencies by means of more complex theoretical constructs, whereas gender theorists and trans advocates are not responsive to the rules of rational discourse. Gender theory is therefore not a scientific or philosophical ‘theory’ but rather an ideology.
Some legal perspectives on the meaning of “coercion”: A) https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Coercion On this definition coercion occurs when a person is forced to do something that they would not do by their “free choice”, because of psychological pressure or a treat by another. “A defense asserted in a criminal prosecution that a person who committed a crime did not do so of his or her own free will, but only because the individual was compelled by another through the use of physical force or threat of immediate serious bodily injury or death.“; B) https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-charges/what-is-coercion-law.html “The broad definition of coercion is "the use of express or implied threats of violence or reprisal (as discharge from employment) or other intimidating behavior that puts a person in immediate fear of the consequences in order to compel that person to act against his or her will." Actual violence, threats of violence, or other acts of pressure may constitute coercion if they're used to subvert an individual's free will or consent.”
People who get offended for wrong reasons are liable for causing the offence.