"Back in high school, I learned about the Hippocratic Oath: ‘first, do no harm’—how would that tune with the admission of ignorance?"
On the assumption that the question isn't rethorical, this is the answer:
Originally, germanic/nordic concepts of justice, fairness and equality (equal treatment for equal deeds was what it meant back then…
"Back in high school, I learned about the Hippocratic Oath: ‘first, do no harm’—how would that tune with the admission of ignorance?"
On the assumption that the question isn't rethorical, this is the answer:
Originally, germanic/nordic concepts of justice, fairness and equality (equal treatment for equal deeds was what it meant back then, the notion is still with us as an ember) did not take intent into account when judging an action. If cause was brought against someone at Ting, and the Ting mulled the charge over, only things proving or disproving the actual action mattered, not the intent.
Ancient Greece and Roman was much the same, as was all non-Abrahamic cultures and faiths. With christianity morphing the jewish faith to a new one, and the concept of sin and redemption entered the cultural concepts, so too came intent to matter, and from the age of science (let's say 1750 just to drop a marker on the definite side of science edging out religion as the foundation of how the ontological and epirstemological foundation for the world was constructed and perceived) onwards, intent has become pre-eminent even trumping actual deeds and consequences.
"It went to Hell, but atleast we meant well" is the prevailing attitude. After that pre-amble (in which post-modernism is used as an analytical tool rather than a position) the answer to your question is unavoidable:
The doctors and nurses and researchers mean well, and therefore are not violating any ethical concerns or principles. It was that easy to subvert them - let intent matter more than any other factor, and they will happily think up the rationalisations for violating any and all oaths themselves.
And the pattern of intent holds true in all fields in Europe and european-derived nations. If old Janus was worshipped today, his creed would have been bastardised into the unholy twins "I didn't mean for X to happen" and "I meant well, that should cunt for something".
Appendix: I got hung up on the memetic signals in the image. Rainbow-patterned medical equipment. Her shirt reading "Obey". And a 33 year old wearing torn blue jeans, as if she was 14. While she may certainly decided on her dress herself, I am equally free to opine on her choice. The one freedom cannot exist without the other after all. And her mouth covered by a cloth-mask which cannot stop a virus. Rainbow, "Obey", the woman's mouth covered as with a veil.
What would Marshall McLuhan have said about constant semiotic and memetic associative imagery everywhere, where it has no rational reason for being represented?
I didn't want to get into the staged picture: in fairness, the rainbow-themed rubber band is certainly something the (virtue-signalling) nurse and/or doctor has been using; as to Anne-Lise's fashion choices, well, what can I say about them (that you didn't say already)?
As to the face-diaper, well, it looks pretty unsued, perhaps even 'staged', to me, but then again, the main issue I'd highlight is the study-leading doctor's statement: four jabs haven't keept Anne-Lise from 'catching Covid', and while they don't know how the human body will react to repeatedly-dosed mRNA therapeutics over the long-term--remember: after 3 months Abs levels are back to pre-injection levels--so let's just do what hasn't worked again. And again. And again.
At some point, this will not work anymore, and what would people like Anne-Lise do then?
She dies, simple as. "Doctors and executioners both get paid if their charge is killed" is an old saying.
Also, the only real caveats to human experimentation in the much-misunderstood Helsinki declaration (which is not law in any nation, no more than the Nuremberg code is) are that consent must be freely given and that the patient is a volunteer. Both of these have been adhered to, so the doctor commits no ethical violation, from his/hers point of view. As for giving people with various conditions the shot again and again, that's the experiment.
The main questions, if not 'the meaning of life', might thus be said to be: what are we dying for? For whom? And, last but not least, was it a life worth living?
As to esp. the third item on that list, I'd argue that it's quite obviously not worth living for Anne-Lise: too afraid to walk outside, highly cautious before Covid, and now…?
I'm have too much of my ancestry in me to ven care about that kind of greek thinking. I live, I love, I fight and in the end I die. What is there to agonise about?
"Back in high school, I learned about the Hippocratic Oath: ‘first, do no harm’—how would that tune with the admission of ignorance?"
On the assumption that the question isn't rethorical, this is the answer:
Originally, germanic/nordic concepts of justice, fairness and equality (equal treatment for equal deeds was what it meant back then, the notion is still with us as an ember) did not take intent into account when judging an action. If cause was brought against someone at Ting, and the Ting mulled the charge over, only things proving or disproving the actual action mattered, not the intent.
Ancient Greece and Roman was much the same, as was all non-Abrahamic cultures and faiths. With christianity morphing the jewish faith to a new one, and the concept of sin and redemption entered the cultural concepts, so too came intent to matter, and from the age of science (let's say 1750 just to drop a marker on the definite side of science edging out religion as the foundation of how the ontological and epirstemological foundation for the world was constructed and perceived) onwards, intent has become pre-eminent even trumping actual deeds and consequences.
"It went to Hell, but atleast we meant well" is the prevailing attitude. After that pre-amble (in which post-modernism is used as an analytical tool rather than a position) the answer to your question is unavoidable:
The doctors and nurses and researchers mean well, and therefore are not violating any ethical concerns or principles. It was that easy to subvert them - let intent matter more than any other factor, and they will happily think up the rationalisations for violating any and all oaths themselves.
And the pattern of intent holds true in all fields in Europe and european-derived nations. If old Janus was worshipped today, his creed would have been bastardised into the unholy twins "I didn't mean for X to happen" and "I meant well, that should cunt for something".
Appendix: I got hung up on the memetic signals in the image. Rainbow-patterned medical equipment. Her shirt reading "Obey". And a 33 year old wearing torn blue jeans, as if she was 14. While she may certainly decided on her dress herself, I am equally free to opine on her choice. The one freedom cannot exist without the other after all. And her mouth covered by a cloth-mask which cannot stop a virus. Rainbow, "Obey", the woman's mouth covered as with a veil.
What would Marshall McLuhan have said about constant semiotic and memetic associative imagery everywhere, where it has no rational reason for being represented?
I didn't want to get into the staged picture: in fairness, the rainbow-themed rubber band is certainly something the (virtue-signalling) nurse and/or doctor has been using; as to Anne-Lise's fashion choices, well, what can I say about them (that you didn't say already)?
As to the face-diaper, well, it looks pretty unsued, perhaps even 'staged', to me, but then again, the main issue I'd highlight is the study-leading doctor's statement: four jabs haven't keept Anne-Lise from 'catching Covid', and while they don't know how the human body will react to repeatedly-dosed mRNA therapeutics over the long-term--remember: after 3 months Abs levels are back to pre-injection levels--so let's just do what hasn't worked again. And again. And again.
At some point, this will not work anymore, and what would people like Anne-Lise do then?
She dies, simple as. "Doctors and executioners both get paid if their charge is killed" is an old saying.
Also, the only real caveats to human experimentation in the much-misunderstood Helsinki declaration (which is not law in any nation, no more than the Nuremberg code is) are that consent must be freely given and that the patient is a volunteer. Both of these have been adhered to, so the doctor commits no ethical violation, from his/hers point of view. As for giving people with various conditions the shot again and again, that's the experiment.
Well, everyone dies in the end, ain't it?
The main questions, if not 'the meaning of life', might thus be said to be: what are we dying for? For whom? And, last but not least, was it a life worth living?
As to esp. the third item on that list, I'd argue that it's quite obviously not worth living for Anne-Lise: too afraid to walk outside, highly cautious before Covid, and now…?
I'm have too much of my ancestry in me to ven care about that kind of greek thinking. I live, I love, I fight and in the end I die. What is there to agonise about?