By Alan Mercer
Continuing from Part 8
More Information on World Medical Association (http://www.wma.net/en/10home/index.html) (WMA)
World Medical Association Publications (http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/index.html) (including white papers, background policy documents, ethics manual, etc.)
World Medical Association propaganda selling the flu vaccination: You should read the official product information for whatever vaccine product is being pushed–which includes ingredients and side-effects warnings about neurological disorders and paralysis–before being swayed by the emotionally manipulative looks of the actors (alternating between stern and happy).
In what concerns Ethics, the WMA has various Declarations, Resolutions and Statements with which tries to help to guide National Medical Associations, governments and international organizations throughout the world. A wide range of subjects are covered like the rights of patients, research on human subjects, care of the sick and wounded in times of armed conflict, torture of prisoners, the use and abuse of drugs, family planning and pollution.
So private organizations like the WMA advise governments on ETHICS. Is that not our concern also as members of the public? Shouldn’t we also advise governments on what we think is ethical?
This page includes:
International Code of Medical Ethics
Declaration of Geneva
Declaration of Helsinki on Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects
Declaration of Tokyo. Guidelines for Physicians Concerning Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in Relation to Detention and Imprisonment
Declaration of Malta on Hunger Strikers
Declaration of Lisbon the Rights of the Patient
Declaration of Ottawa on Child Health
You can search the WMA site for the word “contraception (http://www.wma.net/en/search/index.html?q=contraception&ue=99members&ul=%2Fen%2F&searchbutton.x=0&searchbutton.y=0&searchbutton=search).” One of the subjects is forced and coerced sterilization, which is a real problem.
WMA White Paper: Professionalism and the Medical Association by Jeff Blackmer
This document has a section on conscientious objection, which includes educational strategies that medical associations (authorities?) can deploy against conscientious objectors.
. . . conscientious objection is a term generally used to refer to a situation where a
physician or other health care worker refuses to provide treatment or therapy on the grounds
that such provision would violate their strongly held moral principles. . . .
Note the use of language: This document claims that “conscientious objection” was “co-opted” from the military context (page 16). It’s hard to counter the positive connotations of the phrase “conscientious objection”. This is because “conscientious” implies that somebody is being thoughtful and moral. Also the word “objection” implies free will and being able to make choices. To counter it, you need to imply that this phrase was “co-opted” from some other cause.
In addition to abortion and contraception, other issues include euthanasia, embryo experimentation and participation in executions.
The author basically acknowledges the belief that it’s essential in a free society for doctors to be able to refuse participation in acts that go against their moral convictions. However, he then goes on to explain that there are problems with this as he sees it.
The assumption with these kinds of statements is that the establishment is just indulging the outdated whims of some strange minority–as if their moral objections are just some unnecessary luxury or hobby that might even endanger the lives of patients!
Also, I believe this document is basically saying that not being able to efficiently sterilize everyone who asks for it is awkward.
It’s particularly awkward for these people when members of the public run into individuals holding positions that contradict their hard-won life-long establishment-approved brainwashing. It gungs up the works.
Corporations and governments–who seem to want to tag every living thing genetically and create all the modifications they want–spend many hours and a whole lot of money indoctrinating children through the school system and through television to have the correct attitudes on birth control, abortion, euthanasia, throwing people out of lifeboats, and everything else weird and wonderful.
It’s particularly awkward and inefficient that some doctors’ ideas about the sacredness of human life are kinking up the administration of a worldwide population management program–and other human engineering projects.
The report refers to another kind of doctor with “strongly held beliefs” of his own:
In a recent article in the British Medical Journal, Savulescu claims that:
“A doctor’s conscience has little place in the delivery of modern medical care. . . . If people are not prepared to offer legally permitted, efficient, and beneficial care because it conflicts with their values, they should not be doctors.”
There is also a list of paternalistic “guidance” to be provided by national medical associations (on pages 16, 17 and 37) which includes the following points meant to “assist members to understand” how to be less of a nuisance.
These points are meant to poke and prod and make the conscientious objectors feel a little intimidated or a little guilty about their objections. They’re implying that, hey, maybe the conscientious objectors are the real bullies! Maybe they are the bad guys!
. . . they should not refuse to provide urgently needed care by using the concept of
. . . they should not obstruct, actively or passively, patients from receiving care from another clinician
Nobody wants to “obstruct”. The establishment tries to imply that the doctors are interfering with the patients even though it’s the doctors who could be forced out of their jobs potentially.
. . . address the issue of whether or not the conscientious objector has a duty to refer the patient to another clinician for services the objector will not provide
They push this point hard.
This is how propaganda operates. Words are collected together in such a way that most readers feel compelled to agree with the statement, and so it becomes hard to disagree with the conclusion they are led to. The reader is meant to have a Pavlovian reaction to the key guilt phrases and to react in outrage against the target of the propaganda.
Our world is more and more designed like a machine, and propaganda is like the oil which helps the human cogs run as smoothly as possible. Jacques Ellul already wrote about the purpose of propaganda decades ago.
In addition to money problems and debt, our attention is more and more narrowly focused on our jobs and on our prefabricated entertainment outside of work hours.
Along with our pills and our shots and the poor food, propaganda makes it easier for us to follow instructions.
And that’s how this whole world is built–in our minds and in our resulting actions–as we teeter on the edge of allowing faceless soulless corporations and governments to take collective control over all life–if possible, and this is what Agenda 21 is all about.
We are more and more part of a machine. Those “above” us tell us what to think and what to believe. We are to automatically believe that these instructions are wise and benevolent. We don’t have to think.
Ultimately–if we let this go on–there is only to be one way of thinking about any particular subject on any particular day. Truth and law will continue to be whatever the “authorities” make up–whatever they say.
There are not supposed to be other institutions and belief systems competing for our loyalty to the One True World Corporate State.