By Robert Malone at Brownstone dot org.

Sometimes it is necessary to push a moral philosophy to the extreme before its flaws become clear to all. And then once that happens, it gets much easier to recognize and reject less extreme examples that grow from the same root. At other times, true believers in a flawed moral philosophy will voluntarily advocate for an extreme example without being pushed, and in doing so, inadvertently reveal the absurdity of their proposition.

Plato wrote of Socrates' use of the logical reasoning method of reducing a philosophical assertion he opposed to the point of absurdity, giving rise to the debating method known as an apagogical argument. This involves attempting to establish a claim by showing that following the logic of a proposition or argument would lead to absurdity or contradiction.

The focus of this essay is the philosophical position that, in the case of public health, it is acceptable to mandate that members of society accept a medical treatment without granting personal informed consent, justified as necessary to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number. I argue that the proposition that the majority or the State has the right to impose a medical procedure on the minority is both flawed and repugnant to an ethical society.

The self-evident recent embodiment of this flawed and repugnant logic is the mandated "emergency-use authorized" experimental gene therapy products marketed as Covid vaccines. But, as any parent of a school-aged child or hospital-based health care worker can attest, mandates to accept medical procedures (ergo, "vaccination") without full informed consent are ubiquitous.

These mandates were and are a form of coercion and compulsion. Moreover, the use of government-sponsored propaganda to cause people to accept a medical procedure typically involves coercion, compulsion, and enticement, and governments used all of these during the Covid-19 crisis to "overcome vaccine hesitancy"- defined as unwillingness to accept injection with an emergency use authorized experimental medical product whose side effects include cardiac damage and death.

The next step in the logical progression with this thinking involves the development and deployment of medical "vaccine" products that surreptitiously spread within the general population by infecting or otherwise immunizing non-consenting individuals once the product is introduced into the population.

In the historical case of live attenuated polio vaccine, this was accomplished with knowledge and quiet endorsement by public health officials without informed consent by most others, as the "live" vaccine strain is shed in the feces of the vaccinated and typically infects family members and other close associates.

In the current case, the intentional failure of the FDA and other regulatory bodies to require "shedding" studies for either the Covid mRNA or self-replicating RNA vaccines suggests that a willful neglect to provide even the most superficial informed consent continues to be a feature of Western nation "public health" leadership.

Bioethics, Medical Mandates, and Nazi Physicians

The use or imposition of coercion, enticement, and compulsion by an individual, group, or government to cause a person to accept a medical procedure has long been considered fundamentally unethical. This philosophical position was reinforced as a core principle of civilized society during the Nuremberg trials of Nazi physicians.

Historically, the core of modern medical ethics has been that individuals have personal autonomy and sovereignty over their own bodies, must freely consent to accept a medical procedure, and must receive a complete disclosure of potential risks and benefits before granting personal consent. This fundamental ethical truth is not negotiable, nor is it context-dependent.

There is no ethical codicil that this logic no longer applies if and when a medical emergency has been declared, or else individuals, groups, or governm...