Medical Ethics During an Invented Pandemic

Core medical ethics are all about prioritizing patient needs, doing no harm, providing known safe and effective treatments as needed, along with sticking to the letter and spirit of what international law mandates.

Under the Nuremberg Code — that’s binding constitutional law in the US under its Supremacy 

Clause — all things health related require voluntary consent, no exceptions allowed.

According to the Vermont Ethics Network (VEN), core principles of healthcare ethics including the following:

“Autonomy: to honor the patients right to make their own decision

Beneficence: to help the patient advance his/her own good

Nonmaleficence: to do no harm

Justice: to be fair and treat like cases alike”

Doctors4CovidEthics (D4CE) are on the frontlines of sounding the alarm about hazardous to health flu/covid jabs.

Comprised of “hundreds of doctors and scientists from all corners of the globe,” they warned about short-and-longterm dangers of mass-jabbing with experimental, inadequately tested, rushed to market drugs for flu/covid protection not gotten.

Hazards include life-threatening blood clots, bleeding and platelet abnormalities.

Indisputably unsafe, D4CE “demand(ed) (the) immediate withdrawal” of mass-jabbing wherever ongoing.

D4CE also oppose health passports  — “which threaten public health and violate Nuremberg and other protections.” 

They “warn(ed) that ‘health passes’ place coercive pressure on citizens to submit to dangerous medical experimentation” that international law prohibits.

May physicians ethically refuse to treat unjabbed patients?

Even the rabidly pro-mass-jabbing AMA opposes the practice, saying the following:

“As members of the medical profession, physicians’ first and primary obligation is to provide care to those in need, even in the face of greater than usual risk to their own safety, health or life.”

The above standard applies at all times under all circumstances as “a fundamental human good,” including in “situations of epidemic, disaster or terrorism.”

Healthcare providers — including hospitals and other treatment facilities — must “give first priority to patients for whom treatment will avoid premature death or extremely poor outcomes.”

“In crisis situations, physicians’ ethical responsibilities to be effective leaders of health care teams may come into sharper focus than ever.”

They’re “obligat(ed) to the well-being of patients (as well as) to promote public health and access to care” for patients in need “on the basis of sound scientific evidence and appropriate clinical expertise.”

“Minimiz(ing) risks to patients and maximiz(ing) the likelihood of…benef(icial)” outcomes are fundamental.

“(P)hysician(s) (must) not refuse (to treat) patient(s) (who are) not (jabbed for flu/covid) or decline” them.

“The commitment to care for those who are sick or injured” includes no exceptions to this ethical standard.

According to “experts:”

“In the case of (flu/covid) patients in need of critical care, not only would refusing to administer treatment be highly unethical, it would violate a physician’s duty of care, which can carry legal implications.”

Northeastern University’s Associate Clinical Professor and Director of Interdisciplinary affairs Robert Baginski MD said the following:

“As an emergency department doctor, you treat who is in front of you,” adding:

It’s “a legal obligation,” and the (jabbed) status (of a patient) doesn’t change that.”

Under the US Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (1986), hospitalized patients needing emergency care “must be treated regardless of the circumstances, including that person’s insurance status or ability to pay,” Baginski explained. 

“Providers can be fined and even prosecuted for violations of the statute.”

University of Pennsylvania’s Professor or Medical Ethics Jonathan Moreno MD stressed that doctors must “take care of people, even if we don’t agree with their actions,” adding:

“Once the medical profession starts deciding, picking and choosing who can be cared for and who not for whatever reason, we’re in a really bad position.”

“The foundations of medicine require doctors to take care of patients.”

“If they stopped doing that, then we really have no profession.”

Dr. Kavita Patel agrees, saying “(w)hen you say no to anyone, it creates an incredible moral slippery slope.”

South Florida-based family medicine Dr. Linda Marraccini operates by her own unethical standards.

Saying she’s tired of seeing unjabbed patients, she sent them letter with an ultimatum:

Get jabbed or find another physician.

Defying medical ethics as should be followed — along with the reality of health-destroying flu/covid jabs — NBC News Miami quoted her saying:

“This is a public health emergency (sic)” — when none exists, an invented one alone to unjustifiably justify what’s ongoing.

“The health of the public takes priority over the rights of any given individual in this situation (sic).” 

“It appears that there is a lack of selflessness and concern for the burden on the health and well-being of our society from our encounters (sic).”

The above remarks show profound ignorance about what’s going on, along with indifference toward patient needs and core medical ethics as they should be observed by all practitioners.

New York University medical ethicist Art Caplan largely agrees with Marraccini, saying:

To treat or not treat unjabbed patients is “a sticky issue (sic).” 

Claiming doctors are “justified” in denying treatment to unjabbed patients with protecting others, their staff and themselves breaches core medical ethics and fails to understand the ongoing mother of all state-sponsored scams related to public health and fundamental freedoms.

Polar opposite remarks by Dr. Jason Valentine posted on Facebook, sent to the Washington Post and published on its website included the following:

“I cannot and will not force anyone to take the” flu/covid jab — regardless of his personal views.

At a time of made-in-the-USA war on public health and what remains of fundamental freedoms, resistance is fundamental.

So is observance of medical ethics to the letter by practitioners — with no deviations from this standard for any reasons.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: