“First, Do No Harm”

I understood that medical doctors swore an oath that they would ‘first, do no harm’, but it seems that the practice of swearing such an oath is now comparatively rare. Perhaps it only occurs in backward nations. It would not surprise me if such a swearing of oaths has been abandoned. After all, there are now copious regulations behind which doctors can hide. It appears that PM May proposes to introduce ‘presumed consent’ to organ donation.

That is a weird juxtaposition of words. Imagine this situation:

“Ms X ad I met in the club. I did not know her. We had a great time. I took her home to her flat and she invited me in. It was not long before we were kissing passionately. We finished up in her bedroom. We had sex and it was wonderful for both of us. I was working the next day, and so I drove home”.

Was there ‘presumed consent’ to the sex? I would assume so, since it would be silly to think that a woman who was ‘behaving passionately’ would not shout “NO!” if it was going too far for her liking. In fact, she would obviously stop ‘behaving passionately’. But if she did not, and opened her legs, then ‘presumed consent’ equals ‘consent’. There is nothing ‘presumed’ about it, other than ‘post-coital’ claims.

Consent is specific, but it does not have to be deliberate. When I board an aircraft, I consent to abide by the rules of the airline, but I do not swear an oath or sign a document saying that I shall do so. That is ‘consent’, but not ‘presumed consent’.

The simple test is whether or not it is possible to REFUSE consent. You cannot expect an airline to transport you if you adamantly insist that you will NOT abide by their rules.

‘Presumed consent’ has been going on for decades. But it has been disguised as ‘surveys’. “70% say…..”. What is never enumerated is whether or not the people surveyed have any stake in the game. Thus, people who never go to pubs should not have any say in whether or not smoking should be permitted in pubs. Even worse is the idea that publicans should be punished because people who never go to pubs vote 70% that they should.

Surveys are notorious for revealing ‘second preferences’. That is, respondents say what their ideal situation would be. It is quite easy to see that a majority might be in favour of free bus transport, but the same people would be against paying the taxes which would be required to provide free bus transport.

And so to my main point.

Doctors should swear an oath to ‘first do no harm’. But it is not sufficient for that oath to apply only to doctors. It should also apply to academics. In fact, it should apply to all persons in education and many other professions. Thus, deliberate manipulation of statistics for ideological reasons would be professional misconduct.

Further, if ‘permitting smoking’ can attract a massive punishment, so can ‘professional misconduct’.

For far too long, academics have got away with ‘professional misconduct’, and even when they have been found out, they suffer no criminal consequences.  There lies the problem. They get away with lying and cheating without even the vague possibility of criminal accusations.

And yet the activity of the academics tends to criminalise vast swathes of the population. It is a direct consequence of ‘academic falsehood’ that Australia is in such a mess. Taxes on tobacco are so high that Australia is being flooded with millions of tons of stuff from China and Indonesia. The Oz border control can only intercept a few consignments, and probably only via tip-offs.

Who can blame ordinary citizens for their defiance? People who are being persecuted can reasonably fight their persecutors.

Note that I did not say ‘fight the persecution’. I said ‘fight their persecutors’.

An academic recently said that ecigs should be used as a tool to ban tobacco altogether. That person should be made an example of. She should be dismissed. Why? Because she presumed to have a right over life and death. She presumed to have death camps for smokers. She presumed to have academic immunity from ‘hate crime’.

The oath of “First do no harm”, or at least some sort of ‘criminal intent to deceive’, should apply to academics in the real world.

For too long have academics ruled. And it was the smoking ban which alerted academics and politicians that they were immune from accusations of PERSECUTION.

When will the persecution stop? When will the conspiracy of academia be declared to be ‘ultra vires’? When will politicians in the UK realise that that they are pawns, being controlled by academics?

If ‘teachers’ want to become MPs, they should stand for election. It is beyond contempt that politicians bow down before academics.



%d bloggers like this: