Sometimes it is necessary to push a moral philosophy to the extreme before its flaws become clear to all. And then once that happens, it gets much easier to recognize and reject less extreme examples that grow from the same root. At other times, true believers in a flawed moral philosophy will voluntarily advocate for an extreme example without being pushed, and in doing so, inadvertently reveal the absurdity of their proposition.

Plato wrote of Socrates’ use of the logical reasoning method of reducing a philosophical assertion he opposed to the point of absurdity, giving rise to the debating method known as an apagogical argument. This involves attempting to establish a claim by showing that following the logic of a proposition or argument would lead to absurdity or contradiction.

The focus of this essay is the philosophical position that, in the case of public health, it is acceptable to mandate that members of society accept a medical treatment without granting personal informed consent, justified as necessary to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number. I argue that the proposition that the majority or the State has the right to impose a medical procedure on the minority is both flawed and repugnant to an ethical society. The self-evident recent embodiment of this flawed and repugnant logic is the mandated “emergency use authorized” experimental gene therapy products marketed as COVID vaccines. But, as any parent of a school-aged child or hospital-based health care worker can attest, mandates to accept medical procedures (ergo, “vaccination”) without full informed consent are ubiquitous.

These mandates were and are a form of coercion and compulsion. Moreover, the use of government-sponsored propaganda to cause people to accept a medical procedure typically involves coercion, compulsion, and enticement, and governments used all of these during the COVID-19 crisis to “overcome vaccine hesitancy”- defined as unwillingness to accept injection with an emergency use authorized experimental medical product whose side effects include cardiac damage and death.

The next step in the logical progression with this thinking involves the development and deployment of medical “vaccine” products that surreptitiously spread within the general population by infecting or otherwise immunizing non-consenting individuals once the product is introduced into the population. In the historical case of live attenuated polio vaccine, this was accomplished with knowledge and quiet endorsement by public health officials without informed consent by most others, as the “live” vaccine strain is shed in the feces of the vaccinated and typically infects family members and other close associates. …

The use or imposition of coercion, enticement, and compulsion by an individual, group, or government to cause a person to accept a medical procedure has long been considered fundamentally unethical. This philosophical position was reinforced as a core principle of civilized society during the Nuremberg trials of Nazi physicians. Historically, the core of modern medical ethics has been that individuals have personal autonomy and sovereignty over their own bodies, must freely consent to accept a medical procedure, and must receive a complete disclosure of potential risks and benefits, before granting personal consent. This fundamental ethical truth is not negotiable, nor is it context-dependent.

And so with this, these two woke academic bioethicists have provided us with a great spontaneous example of reductio ad absurdum ("reduction to absurdity"). The most extreme example of failure to honor the fundamental principle of informed consent is to release an infectious agent or vector (the tick) into a population of individuals who are not complying with what a subgroup defines as a moral imperative (not eating meat).

Just a tiny step back from that is the introduction of another insect vector (mosquitos) capable of transmitting a vaccine. And one step back from that is forcing a population to accept a “vaccine” product that introduces synthetic genetic material in the form of modified mRNA (and DNA fragments) into the cells of their body without obtaining freely given fully informed consent. And then to introduce a synthetic self-replicating RNA based on a virus that causes encephalitis into their cells, without demonstrating that this product cannot be shed and infect others.

This has now been normalized by “public health officials”. But it is morally wrong, and fundamentally repugnant. The ends do not justify the means. Mandating that members of society accept a medical treatment without granting personal informed consent, to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number, is wrong. And even more ethically repugnant is to administer or release a product that will surreptitiously modify human behavior by inflicting an acquired medical condition such as AGS. And if you agree to this, then you can see that administering or releasing a product that will surreptitiously modify the genetics and immune function of non-consenting humans is a crime against humanity.

All of the above are morally wrong. They are uncivilized. They are examples of crimes against humanity. …

The AAP fully endorses the argument that, in the interests of “public health”, members of society (and specifically children) should be mandated to accept a medical treatment with or without personal informed consent, to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number.

This logic is flawed; this and other AAP positions are morally wrong, must be rejected, and organizations promoting this logic should be shamed and shunned.