Covid Medicine and the push towards rationing medical care
09 November 2021

by a group of PANDA doctors

Medical care fundamentally demands treatment be provided without judgment for a patient’s personal beliefs. If a practitioner’s emotions do not allow them to dispense medical care without bias, they should immediately resign.

Major news outlets, relying on incorrect data, fabricated numbers and manufactured scenarios, are encouraging refusal of patient care for unvaccinated people. This trend, advocating for withholding and denying treatment to COVID patients, is extremely alarming and violates basic medical ethics.

These ethics have been fundamental to the practice of medicine and public health since the 1940’s, when the Nuremberg and later the Declaration of Helsinki codified the autonomy of individuals over their own bodies and health. Under the preceding Geneva Convention, even “enemy” soldiers have a right to proper medical care, they must be seen and treated by medical staff as neutral agents.

Medical practices are required to treat patients without prejudice to the cause of their illnesses. The core of medical ethics, which are universally established and practiced, compels us to provide service regardless of a patient’s values, behaviors or personal character. Physicians cannot deny service because a patient is an illegal drug user or dealer, sexual predator, thief or murderer. One would never contemplate refusing treatment to the patient who is injured in a car crash due to their use of alcohol. We do not refuse an ICU bed to a DKA patient because they ate sugar and didn’t take their meds properly!

It is unacceptable and possibly criminal to deny services to a patient because they engaged in a behavior that is not in alignment with the treating practitioner’s belief system.

Furthermore, medical and ethical principles require all interventions be voluntary and need informed consent. To refuse a hospital or ICU bed to a Covid19 patient because they did not consent to taking experimental therapeutics, is grossly unethical! The ruling allowing these experimental vaccines to be used clearly states that it is voluntary and requires fully informed consent be obtained prior to administration.

There is no basis in medicine for withholding treatment from patients. In a medical emergency, if a situation arises to completely overwhelm the system, a multi-pronged and coordinated response is essential. Relying blindly on a one size fits all solution is the primary reason for the system’s failure.

We must never, as a profession, allow a disease, no matter how overwhelming or scary it seems, to erode our hard thought out and fought for ethics!

Publisher’s note: The opinions and findings expressed in articles, reports and interviews on this website are not necessarily the opinions of PANDA, its directors or associates.

Share this

Post Tags

WE RELY ON YOUR SUPPORT

Our News In Your Inbox

Subscribe to our newsletter

RECENTLY ADDED TO THE SITE

Essential Questions to WHO on Pandemic Preparedness and Response

Essential Questions to WHO on Pandemic Preparedness and Response

In line with the founding principles of the WHO and orthodox principles of public health, PANDA has decided to publish its submission for the INB hearings in advance, to encourage open debate in ensuring global pandemic preparedness is underpinned by a strong evidence base, which gives full consideration to the COVID-19 response. 

Here’s Why a WHO-Led Pandemic Treaty is a Terrible Idea

Here’s Why a WHO-Led Pandemic Treaty is a Terrible Idea

by Dr David Thunder | The World Health Organization has proposed that the international community negotiate and eventually ratify an international “accord” or “treaty” that would effectively consolidate the position of the WHO as the pre-eminent public authority responsible for guiding and coordinating international pandemic responses.