Hippocratic Oath No More?

Hippocratic Oath No More
By Ramblin’ Rose

For the last decade or more, political campaigns have been fraught with dire predictions of “death panels” if the “other side” wins the election. Fortunately, these predictions have not been realized. Or have they? And by the medical profession, no less.

This does not seem to conform with the Hippocratic Oath to do no harm to patients that we assume medical personnel follow. People see their doctor and other caregivers under the assumption of receiving treatments as patients—medications, operations, surgeries, even transplants to recover and lead a healthy life. But the Hippocratic Oath, if taken, is not legally binding.

It is stunning and horrifying that numerous patients are being denied scheduled transplant surgeries because they, for personal and religious reasons, have not succumbed to the Biden administration’s demands of taking the shots.

Mayo Clinic lists patients with untreated psychiatric or mental disorders who would be unable to care for themselves as persons who may be disqualified for an organ transplant. When asked if the covid-19 injection was required for eligibility for an organ transplant, the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) replied that the transplant hospital makes that decision. The NIH recommends [emphasis added] the shots for transplant candidates. Johns Hopkins’ current electronic version of the criteria for transplantation does not include anything about status related to covid-19. According to Newsweek (January 25, 2022), “The American Society of Transplantation (AST) recommends [emphasis added] all eligible children and adult transplant candidates and recipients are vaccinated, especially prior to the procedure.” The Cleveland Clinic decided to require covid-19 vaccinations for both transplant recipients and donors. The standards appear to be fluid and unsettled at this point, but patients are the ones affected by the uncertain policies.

Sadly, the media for several months have reported on patients whose name was removed from the donor or recipient list based on their injection status.

In Colorado last fall, Leilani Lutali was denied a kidney transplant because she refused the vaccine for religious reasons related to the use of fetal cell lines in the development of the jab. Lutali had covid in July, recovered and developed natural antibodies. But the hospital claimed that only the vaccinated would be considered.

Another woman, Dawn McLaughlin, also from Colorado, was also removed from the kidney transplant list for the same refusal to get the shot.

The Niklas Organ Donor Awareness Foundation, based in Grand Prairie, Texas, is offering to help people like McLaughlin and Lutali find housing while they await organ transplants in Texas.

>About the same time, the Cleveland Clinic denied Michelle Vitullo her daughter’s kidney. Neither had had the jab. They, too, had refused the vaccine on religious grounds and for fears of adverse effects, a fact also reported by the media. Vitullo also hoped that another hospital would offer her access to the procedure.

Recently, Chad Carswell, a U.S. Air Force veteran of Conover, North Carolina, was also denied a kidney transplant. He chose not to get the vaccine because he had had covid twice, survived six heart attacks and suffers from diabetes. His kidneys function at only 4% effectiveness.

In Boston, a young father of two, D.J. Ferguson, needs a heart transplant. His own heart no longer functions on its own, but since he has chosen not to be vaccinated, his name is no longer on the transplant list.

Scott Quiner from Buffalo, MN, contracted covid and was on a ventilator. His other organs remained strong. By the time the family was able to transfer him to Texas, having been denied further treatment at Mercy Hospital in Coon Rapids, he died. The medical personnel in Texas reported that he died of malnutrition— “vaccine shaming” by the medical staff in MN.

Some physicians view the situation more humanely. The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) proposed H.R. 6534, the Stop Arduous Vaccine Enforcement (SAVE) Act of 2022. Jane Orient, M.D., AAPS’ executive director declared, "The need for the SAVE Act shows that in the U.S. patients have no right to the medical care they need or desire but only a privilege to receive what the authorities will allow."

Those authorities seem to claim that since a series of vaccines was required prior to the pandemic, it is logical to add the covid-19 shots.

I would ask: If the covid-19 vaccines are so necessary as a safeguard, how is it possible for those with three shots to contract and transmit the virus? Is this requirement not premature?

Has America moved into a practice of medical apartheid?

How many names have been removed from the transplants lists and not shared with us by the media?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Is Joe Biden our Grifter-in-Chief?

Tim Walz's Confederate Flag Fiasco

Maria Bartiromo's interrogation of Gov. Ron DeSantis