|
Replies: 6
| visibility 1
|
110%er [7356]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 9891
Joined: 10/6/21
|
Compulsory admin. of COVID-19 vax: Part II (covert vax's)
Apr 11, 2022, 2:08 PM
|
|
Didn't seem to take during first time posted ... here goes again.
Part II - - - Compulsory moral bio-enhancement should be covert (this is for the USA)
PubMed.gov (Bio-ethics topic) - - - January 2019
Author: Peter Crutchfield
COMMENT: Think hard and think twice before assuming that medical choices will always be your own. This goes beyond Covid-19 vaccines.
(No link; below is just a cut-and-paste of the abstract.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Compulsory moral bioenhancement should be covert
Parker Crutchfield 1
Affiliations expand
PMID: 30157295
DOI: 10.1111/bioe.12496
Abstract
Some theorists argue that moral bioenhancement ought to be compulsory. I take this argument one step further, arguing that if moral bioenhancement ought to be compulsory, then its administration ought to be covert rather than overt. This is to say that it is morally preferable for compulsory moral bioenhancement to be administered without the recipients knowing that they are receiving the enhancement. My argument for this is that if moral bioenhancement ought to be compulsory, then its administration is a matter of public health, and for this reason should be governed by public health ethics. I argue that the covert administration of a compulsory moral bioenhancement program better conforms to public health ethics than does an overt compulsory program. In particular, a covert compulsory program promotes values such as liberty, utility, equality, and autonomy better than an overt program does. Thus, a covert compulsory moral bioenhancement program is morally preferable to an overt moral bioenhancement program.
Keywords: autonomy; harm; moral enhancement; public health ethics; public policy.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
|
|
|
|
 |
Oculus Spirit [98218]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65178
Joined: 7/13/02
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7356]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 9891
Joined: 10/6/21
|
Re: They need to ban philosophy professors
Apr 11, 2022, 4:02 PM
|
|
Thank you for correcting me ("It's not a medical paper at all, it's an ethics paper.").
That doesn't in any way negate the point that the 'medical ethics' people in the USA have been promoting the practice of covert medical procedures (i.e., without the patient's consent).
This was a 2019 abstract. An obsolete debate that's probably gone away by now? Uhhh, no.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [98218]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65178
Joined: 7/13/02
|
They also once argued for eugenics. What's your point?
Apr 11, 2022, 4:09 PM
|
|
The Australian document (C&P) was totally BS. This is some nutty professor in Michigan or Wisconsin or something.
If you're saying a document in Australia that outlines how a vaccine may be given UPON INFORMED CONSENT, under sedation, like MANY shots are given to senile people in nursing homes and children etc, dovetails somehow with a professor at some college who thinks people should be involuntarily vaccinated....I'm not making the connection based on the information given.
Is a nutjob American philosophy professor's essay connected with a fairly standard medical document from another country on the other side of the world somehow mean Biden or US democrats, or anyone, is going to sedate people and give them vaccines?
But I'm sure on the twitter feed or wherever the two seemed to be in lock step.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7356]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 9891
Joined: 10/6/21
|
Re: They also once argued for eugenics. What's your point?
Apr 11, 2022, 4:23 PM
|
|
That's why the post was done as a Part I and a Part II.
The un-informed consent (in Australia) for giving vaccines to patients who are under sedation for an UNRELATED PROCEDURE is the key part.
I recognize that this small but horrifying sentence is buried within an otherwise largely innocuous article. Please forgive me for being unkind and suggesting that the key aspect is obvious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [98218]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65178
Joined: 7/13/02
|
It means if senile grandma at the nursing home has to
Apr 11, 2022, 5:29 PM
|
|
have a hip surgery, you CAN CONSENT to having her vaccinated during the surgery by giving INFORMED CONSENT as her medical poa. OR, as YOU go into YOUR hip surgery, and you hate needles, you can CONSENT to them giving you the vaccine under sedation. Without it, they can't.
I'm not sure where you get this carte-blanche ability to any doctor to inject someone if sedated. I mean I know where you got it, I just don't see where you got it from the document you cited. Actually I cited it, you copied and pasted a narrative with a few quotes from it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7356]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 9891
Joined: 10/6/21
|
Re: It means if senile grandma at the nursing home has to
Apr 12, 2022, 1:03 AM
|
|
Read it more carefully ... an Australian doctor has the prerogative to give an vaccine for a condition that is unrelated to the procedure for a person under sedation.
That doesn't mean that the doctor will do it, but he can if he chooses to. Without the patient's consent.
Read it more carefully and you'll get it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 6
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
