Nuremberg Code and voluntary consent

Perhaps our politicians should mediate upon the Nuremberg Code of guidelines for determining what constitutes a war crime and UNESCO Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights – Article 6.
 

Thanks to by Dr Bruce Scott October 23, 2020 article “New Normal” from Off-Guardian Website

Nuremberg Code

The Nuremberg Code (German: Nürnberger Kodex) is a set of research ethics principles for human experimentation created by the USA v Brandt court as one result of the Nuremberg trials at the end of the Second World War. In a review written on the 50th anniversary of the Brandt verdict, Katz writes that “a careful reading of the judgment suggests that” the authors wrote the Kodex “for the practice of human experimentation whenever it is being conducted.” (wikipedia)

The following is the basis upon which western medical experimentation has been practiced up until 2020.

1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.
    
2. The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.
    
3. The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment.
    
4. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.
    
5. No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.
    
6. The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.
    
7. Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death.
    
8. The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.
    
9. During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.
    
10. During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgment required of him that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.

UNESCO Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights: Article 6 – Consent

1. Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice.
    
2. Scientific research should only be carried out with the prior, free, express and informed consent of the person concerned. The information should be adequate, provided in a comprehensible form and should include modalities for withdrawal of consent. Consent may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without any disadvantage or prejudice. Exceptions to this principle should be made only in accordance with ethical and legal standards adopted by States, consistent with the principles and provisions set out in this Declaration, in particular in Article 27, and international human rights law.
    
3. In appropriate cases of research carried out on a group of persons or a community, additional agreement of the legal representatives of the group or community concerned may be sought. In no case should a collective community agreement or the consent of a community leader or other authority substitute for an individual’s informed consent.

The Nuremberg Code and UNESCO Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights – Article 6, make for sobering reading when it comes to governmental mandates or ideas in the pipeline regarding COVID-19.

Just think of face masks (especially for children), social distancing, travel restrictions, work restrictions, immunity passports and ideas about giving people a rushed out unlicensed vaccine for COVID-19 (which will be indemnified) which has not been assessed for the long-term side effects.

The cult-like nature of the Brave New Normal that is COVID-19 is insidiously pervading more and more aspects of our lives, with seemingly less and less science to back it up, and curiously being seen by those in power as an “opportunity” to reshape our society, not for our good, but for the good of those in power.

Perhaps we should all think about what all this means for us, our children, our grandchildren and democracy in all countries where we once had it.

Join me on Telegram.com: @GideonHartnett https://t.me/gideonhartnett  (join my group)