Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

To the Editor:
In recent years there have been attempts to replace the original Hippocratic Oath by a CDC/NIH bureaucratic code as a means to give the federal government more control over the medical establishment. The liberal elites, the present administration, big pharma, large medical corporations and elite medical institutes have used the proclaimed COVID pandemic as a means to overturn the Hippocratic Oath and thus alter the doctor-patient relationship. This relationship is being slowly overcome by the federal medical bureaucracy and the medical insurance establishment. The doctor’s treatment decisions are often constrained and thus the patient does not have all the options for treatment made available to him/her. This is especially true if the doctor’s preferred treatment differs from that of the bureaucracy and/or establishment. Sadly this may have financial overtones which in some cases may also be detrimental to the most effective and/or least costly treatment process.
Then you may ask how do the mandates and declared medical emergency (Public Health Emergency) stack up with history. First of all the declaring of an emergency gave the government, especially the CDC, essentially dictatorial (unlimited) powers to deal with the so called pandemic. This resulted in vaccine mandates, mask mandates, lock downs and social distancing. Fear tactics were cleverly employed through the media to facilitate the mandates; i.e., make them more acceptable. For the first time in history these medical mandates were applied to essentially the whole population. The declared emergency powers were assumed to be the same as those associated with a war (combat) where the countries’ survival against another nation or nations is at stake.
The big question is should the declaration of any national emergency carry the same weight as that of a declaration of war. A war is the ultimate emergency. Actually all other emergencies pale in significance. Thus there needs to be significant restrictions on other emergency declarations. Even the declaration of war requires congressional approval. Likewise any declared national emergency should require the approval of both the senate and house. It should also be noted that the purpose of an emergency declaration is to help people (offer assistance) not force them by the use of mandates. When you force people to take certain actions you are taking away their freedom to choose. Thus any national emergency short of a war should require the approval of both the house and senate by a margin of no less than two thirds within a period of 48 hours. If the emergency is not approved by a two thirds vote within 48 hours then it shall be null and void. If necessary a special called session of Congress may be required.
From a medical historical view that has happened. First the Hippocratic Oath requires a doctor, to the best of his/her abilities, to treat their patient(s). They should not be controlled by some outside force (mandates). It should be a treatment process that is agreed to by the patient and doctor. If you review the results of the Nuremberg Trial relative to the medical treatment of Jewish prisoners by the Nazis during WW II you find out the following facts. These prisoners were subject to horrible medical tests/trials. They were treated as guinea pigs to say the least. Many of them died, some suffered tremendous physical and mental anguish and many were scarred for life. They were dehumanized. Many of the Nazi doctors responsible for these horrendous acts made various claims including we were commanded to do this, this was approved by our superiors, etc. The decision by the international court was that these were “crimes against humanity” and that they were guilty regardless of the approval of any government body. The final statement was that any medical treatment, tests or experiments without “INFORMED CONSENT” was a “crime against humanity.” This is what the Federal mandates did just to a lesser degree. But we are on the same slippery slope unless we legislatively stop it. The sanctity of life must be upheld.
Relative to EXECUTIVE ORDERS similar legislative restraints are needed, otherwise the orders only apply to persons within the executive branch and not the entire nation. Perhaps only a simple majority of either the house or senate would be needed for approval. Of course restriction may be added to the approval.

J. Ronald Winter
Elizabethton