Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Freedom Fox's avatar

Yes!! Let's talk about Bioethics! When Bioethicists talk about their field they describe it as practicing "Good Stewardship" of the ignorant, unwashed masses by their educated, more sophisticated elites.

Like Pres. Obama's spokesperson said after pictures from his birthday party in 2021 revealed maskless attendees served by masked staff:

https://www.foxnews.com/media/new-york-times-reporter-faces-backlash-after-sophisticated-vaccinated-crowd-comments-after-ob

The same "sophisticated" elitism drips from the entire field of Bioethics. A very illuminating presentation of their work product can be found in this guide:

https://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Public-health-ethical-issues.pdf

The Nuffield Council on Bioethics produced this guide to ethical public health policymaking in 2007. It is considered a gold-standard presentation of bioethics used by public policymakers internationally to help guide their decisions. It's guidance is still relevant and useful today, explaining much of what public health officials have relied upon to determine public policies. Subjects it touches on include obesity, tobacco and alcohol, infectious disease, equity and water fluoridation. That doesn't necessarily make it a good guide.

Public health policymakers can ignore evidence many accomplished experts put forward and assert their own flimsy stand-ins for evidence for as long as they want. And stand in their definition of ethics doing it. And have courts uphold their policies.. Judges go to the same types of parties like Obama has. Members of the same elite, sophisticated crowd. Who value what bioethicists have to say about public health matters.

Take the practice of water fluoridation. Very meager evidence of efficacy is asserted and upheld in the face of large bodies of evidence it's ineffective and unsafe produced by many accomplished experts. Upheld for over 75 years. Coercive public health actions that remove consent from the public, no opt-outs, judges haven't put a stop to it. They call water fluoridation ethical, following the "good stewardship" model.

I find Chapter 7, Water Fluoridation beginning on page 121 (153) useful in the context of community masking mandates. It all is useful to read to gain full context, and beginning on page 135 (167) is a section on Consent that gets to the principles that inform public policymakers on the ethics of coercive public health actions that remove the consent of the public, no way to opt-out.

Throughout the entire guide and even in the section on Fluoridation it gives voice to individual free choice. That it rarely honors in its final subject guidance. With water fluoridation it shares that even after over 60 years (in 2007, now over 75 years) of fluoridating water there's little compelling evidence that it is effective. It acknowledges that in lab studies some results have been promising, but clear scientific results have never been produced that show it works as claimed in a community setting. It also acknowledges that opponents of fluoridating water have produced lab studies showing harmful effects, including increased cancer, from fluoridated water, but they've been disputed by proponents of fluoridation and so there's no clear scientific results that shows it is unquestionably harmful. Earlier in the guide it makes the case that no ethical public policy should be made so coercive it removes consent unless it is proven to be safe and effective.

With regards to fluoridation it says that because there's no clear, compelling evidence on either side that nation's ought not make it public policy for ethical reasons. *But* it goes on to offer that if local communities wish to do so they may (like mask mandates). Then shifting the burden of proof onto opponents of fluoridation to shows clear, unquestionable scientific evidence it is unsafe. Violating the very ethics of the guide it purports to adhere to.

Apply this same reasoning to pandemic mitigation public policy, including mandatory mask mandates, policies that remove individual consent for a proclaimed collective public health concern. Know that water fluoridation has over 75 years of practice now in many communities, with no compelling evidence it is effective at preventing cavities (caries). But based on mere assertions of efficacy local communities fluoridate water. And because opponents aren't able to produce scientific evidence of harm that satisfies the proponents of fluoridation it is deemed ethical public policy at the local community level. With this model as a guide, local communities could continue with mask mandates for 75 years without any compelling evidence, dismissing all evidence of harms presented by opponents. And consider themselves ethical. Even "Good Stewards" of their citizens.

This bioethics guide proclaims its product represents the ideal of "Good Stewardship" that balances the competing interests of individual choice and freedom with the collective's public health and safety required sacrifices. In fact, it gives mere lip service to individual choice and freedom as it minimizes the value of it, while giving broad deference to presumptions of necessary collective sacrifices with little scrutiny. But because it gives any kind of voice to the individual it pats itself on the back for balancing the competing interests. It's mental masturbation for the creators of it, with multiple exclamations of King Solomon-like wisdom.

Expand full comment
TnDoc's avatar

A truly odious duo. May they reap what they have sown - and, soon!

Expand full comment
33 more comments...

No posts