“No vaccine, No work policy”

by Joe Mancera

How many times the TRUTH had been stifled during this Covid-19 pandemic? Countless times had it been covered up, and we are still counting. Foremost was that sudden spike of Covid-19 cases in Cebu City which put PhilHealth in very bad light that led to more than forty (40) of its officials being suspended/fired by President Duterte and a new PhilHealth president was appointed.
Corruption begets more corruption that Cebu Governor Gwen Garcia had to personally interview doctors, nurses and other medical front-liners about how much each Covid case is worth in corrupted money? For symptomatic, P140,000; mild, symptomatic P400,000; and serious is P750,000. It is why the national IATF could not silence Gov. Gwen with her rumblings against Covid lies. In fact, she was practical when she allowed OFW’s to land at Mactan International Airport and release them in two days when documents had been complied with, not having them get isolated for 7 or 14 days in expensive hotels in Manila. Now Mactan airport is closed to directly returning OFWs.
They are now spreading more lies with their rumors of “No Vaccine, No Work” policy which the Department of Health Labor and Employment (DOLE) had just prohibited.
IPINAGBABAWAL ang no vaccine, no work policy. Ayon sa DOLE Advisory #30 series of 2021, maaaring hikayatin ng mga employer and kanilang mga empleyado na magpapabakuna o kaya ang hindi pa mapabakunahan ay hindi dapat madiscrimina sa kanyang trabaho, dagdag pa nito, ang Republic Act 11525 ay nagsasaad na ang mga vaccine card ay HINDI dapat gawing requirement para sa paghahanap ng trabaho.
For the information of the public, I hereby reprint salient features of the Nuremberg Code, which are the following:
BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL No 7070 Volume 313: Page 1448,
7 December 1996.
Introduction
The judgment by the war crimes tribunal at Nuremberg laid down 10 standards to which physicians must conform when carrying out experiments on human subjects in a new code that is now accepted worldwide.
This judgment established a new standard of ethical medical behaviour for the post World War II human rights era. Amongst other requirements, this document enunciates the requirement of voluntary informed consent of the human subject. The principle of voluntary informed consent protects the right of the individual to control his own body.
This code also recognizes that the risk must be weighed against the expected benefit, and that unnecessary pain and suffering must be avoided.
This code recognizes that doctors should avoid actions that injure human patients.
The principles established by this code for medical practice now have been extended into general codes of medical ethics.
The Nuremberg Code (1947)
Permissible Medical Experiments
The great weight of the evidence before us to effect that certain types of medical experiments on human beings, when kept within reasonably well-defined bounds, conform to the ethics of the medical profession generally. The protagonists of the practice of human experimentation justify their views on the basis that such experiments yield results for the good of society that are unprocurable by other methods or means of study. All agree, however, that certain basic principles must be observed in order to satisfy moral, ethical and legal concepts:

1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.
   The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs, or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.
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 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.
   For more information see Nuremberg Doctor’s Trial, BMJ 1996;313(7070):1445-75

(Photo source: LGU Tomas Oppus Facebook page)