Hippocratic Hypocrisy
Letters from Mr Charrington #1
I’ve a good friend down town, Mr Charrington, a old widower with a love for second-hand things. Anyway, he’s written to me and I thought it best to share with you also.
Dear Mr Smith,
While considering which antiques you may be interested in, I reviewed your missive on the reporting of vaccine injury not happening as it should, as well as the stories of nurses who are so distressed at what they are witnessing. It has actually made me wonder where the doctors are in this tale. I wonder what their role is, would they be the ones directing the nurses and their patients down this road of despair? If so, then how did the medicos descend from their previous lofty position that I recall they held from when I was a child many years ago?
Hippocrates is considered to be the father of medicine whose disciples were made to swear an oath to the Gods of healing in the Greek pantheon of Gods being: Apollo, Asclepius, Hygeia, and Panacea. This was to help them understand what was expected from them in their conduct as healers. Although in existence since around 400B.C. it has only been universal since the early 19th century. Before that, different cultures had their own oaths. Today, while many medical students take an oath of some form when they graduate, there is no standard approach.
Swearing to ancient Greek Gods would seem a little redundant in this multiethnic, multicultural, and pluralistic world in which we now find ourselves. “I will not cut,” a vow then aimed at physicians, would be an impossible commitment in today’s medical profession. We have grown used to expecting a medical profession self regulating its conduct through the Oath of Hippocrates and such regulation to be primarily for the benefit of the patient. In modern history, particularly in the Nazi era, "doctors" conducted experiments without informed consent. They acted “according to the best of their ability and judgement.” Following World War II an outcome of the Nuremberg Trials saw a review of the oath and new ethical principles for research. The court recognised the limitations of the Hippocratic oath in the modern era of bioethics and proposed the Nuremberg Code1 which has been honored by many countries since it’s adoption in 1947.
In recent times, as was also highlighted in the Nuremberg Code, informed consent became central to the practice of medicine. It covers both health care and the law. The U.S. National Library of Medicine explains that informed consent has seven features:
Affirming the patient's role in the decision-making process
Describing the clinical issue and suggested treatment
Stating alternatives to the suggested treatment (including the option of no treatment)
Stating risks and benefits of the suggested treatment (and comparing them to the risks and benefits of alternatives)
Stating related uncertainties
Assessing the patient's understanding of the information provided
Eliciting the patient's preference (and thereby consent).
Within the above, it is understood that every detail does not need to be discussed, but all details needed for a “reasonable person” to make a decision must be provided. The data we are seeing tells us that no details are discussed. We see mass vaccination centres established more following the principles espoused by Henry Ford than Hippocrates' principle within his oath to "first, do no harm".
The fact is that Physicians are no longer healers, and healing is no longer an art, but simply a service rendered. Medicine, once seen as a noble and even holy profession, is now defined as “services rendered” under Consumer Protection Acts. The image of the Hippocratic gentleman has perished, replaced by that of the general practitioner harassed on several fronts and the elite specialist class more renowned for the type and number of expensive automobiles and mansion-like homes they possess than for being exceptional and caring doctors.
While there are many, many fine exceptions, the bottom line is that where once we saw a Doctor as a person who claimed to follow Hippocrates, we now see Hypocrites - those who claim or pretend to have certain beliefs about what is right, but who behave in ways that disagree with those beliefs.
yours
Mr.Charrington
P.S. I’ve still a room available above my shop if you are interested Mr Smith.
“Fact Checkers” have gone out of their way lately to falsify any claim that there is a breach of the Nuremberg Code and/or that the Code has nothing to do with the nature of the current vaccine rollout - i.e. the vaccines are neither experimental nor is there any “forcing” of the vaccine. Strong arguments can, and should, be made that this is a huge experiment with an experimental technology and many facing the “no jab, no job” ultimatum would feel coerced to say the least.