(LifeSiteNews) — The problem with undermining basic ethical principles to preserve power is that they won’t survive. A principle, once undermined, is no longer a principle. So when Australia’s health authorities engaged in what Kara Thomas, secretary of the Australian Medical Professionals Society (AMPS), described as “severe censure, and punishment” of medical practitioners, it did lasting damage to the ethics of the profession, especially the protection of the doctor-patient relationship.
“[Those] who dutifully use their intellectual freedom and right to political communication to speak what they believe in defense of patients and the public find it costs them their entire career,” comments Thomas.
For those still practicing, an impossible legal conundrum is looming. A letter in January from AMPS to its members outlines a trap in which Australian doctors are caught. It warns doctors that a scheme that the previous Federal Government announced in 2021 to legally protect health professionals was never established. Consequently, the administering of the COVID-19 vaccination is “likely not an indemnified action” the letter warns. “Unlike the case with manufacturers of COVID-19 vaccines, there appears to be no government liability protection beyond the vaccine injury ‘COVID-19 vaccine claims scheme’.”
The letter goes on to say that doctors and health practitioners are required to get informed consent from their patients, including by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA). Yet it was AHPRA that was principally responsible for coercing doctors into administering the vaccines and warning them not to criticise government policy.
So, on the one hand doctors were told that they had to get informed consent from patients, and yet on the other they were threatened with the loss of their jobs if they provided any information that did not exactly comport with government edicts. The AMPS letter says that a March 9, 2021 joint statement by AHPRA and National Boards threatened regulatory action “for anti-vaccination messages in professional health practice, and any promotion of anti-vaccination claims, including on social media.”
The letter also quotes The Australian Immunisation Handbook, which says that for consent to be legally valid, “it must be given voluntarily in the absence of undue pressure, coercion or manipulation… It can only be given after the potential risks and benefits of the relevant vaccine, the risks of not having it, and any alternative options have been explained to the person.”
Just how much the abrogation of ethical principles has compromised Australia’s medical profession is underlined further by bizarre advice from The Medical Indemnity Protection Society (MIPS) in an article entitled ‘12 Commandments to avoid AHPRA notifications.’
The MIPS advice is that, in order for health practitioners to ensure that they can get insurance, they are obliged to ensure their views are consistent with public health messaging. “This is particularly relevant in current times. Views expressed which may be consistent with evidence-based material may not necessarily be consistent with public health messaging.”
How are doctors supposed to keep their patients informed if they are required to keep quiet about “evidence-based material”? Is that not essential to providing sound information to patients?
Such legal and ethical knots are inevitable when basic principles are undermined. Australia’s health authorities want to be considered credible, yet they do not do what is required to deserve such credibility. The betrayal will have profound consequences for the whole system.
One is a loss of public trust. Another is the likelihood of legal battles as evidence emerges of vaccine harms. A recent study found that Australia’s significant excess mortality, which emerged in 2021, “was strongly correlated with COVID-19 mass injections five months earlier.” It points to “strength of correlation, consistency, specificity, temporality, and dose-response relationship” and concludes that “excess deaths were largely caused by COVID-19 injections.”
If such extreme vaccine harm is established, will Australian doctors be able to defend themselves legally, given that they were not able to give any warnings to patients and thus not able to elicit informed consent?
Thomas writes: “Censoring the medical frontline during this pandemic as a means to create confidence in government public health messaging and combat vaccine hesitancy is proving to be a very grave error indeed. In the name of ‘keeping us safe’, authorities silenced doctors and partnered with big tech to withhold and control information.”
“High court precedence and international bioethical declarations have been trashed by National boards and AHPRA who have made unquestioning compliance to government public health messaging the new accepted standard of good medical practice,” she continues. “Evidence based medicine, informed consent and bodily autonomy have been undermined to the point where practitioners are now seen by many as a mere enforcement arm of government propaganda. It is no coincidence that trust in our institutions and the medical professions appear to have died suddenly.”