Articles by Mary W Maxwell, PhD, LLB
Duplex False Flags: Sandy Hook, Boston Marathon, Etc.
The use of a false flag is commonplace by now. A baddy does something to harm people and lays the blame on another. The word ‘flag’ gets in there because it is often a nation blaming another nation, falsely. But it could be an organization, such as the CIA, blaming ordinary citizens.
Suppose for the moment that Adam Lanza was not the killer at the Sandy Hook School in Newtown, Connecticut on December 14, 2012, and the Tsarnaev brothers did not do the bombing at the Boston Marathon on April 15, 2013. Suppose those are false flags, done by some other unnamed party.
Pretend you are an advisor to the organization that is actually the guilty party. I will use the example of the CIA, as they are a covert agency and they believe they have a mandate to do whatever they can to aid… um… I’m not sure whom they allegedly aid, maybe the USA, maybe the economic elite.
So the incident has taken place and people want to know more about it. What do you, the advisor, suggest would be useful to keep the heat off the real baddy? Keep in mind that there’s now a big community of ‘truthers’ out there, folks who are taught every day by Alex Jones (and even by sober scholars like Mary W Maxwell) that a secret government is behind all the disasters. Tsunamis, child abductions, 9-11, it’s all the ‘CIA.’
Get Creative: Invent a Duplex Reporting Style
Your client has always wanted to control every aspect of the public mind. If there is a Bible-thumping element in society, your client needs to be there with them. If there are eco-purists your client needs to be among their leaders. As for 9-11, there are readers of Independent Media who need to be controlled.
So, your client must work inside the truth media as well as the regular media! It will speak for both goody and baddy! I give the name ‘duplex’ to the new phenomenon in which, as soon as there is a false flag event, there is, simultaneously, a critique of it. The ‘CIA’ lets loose on the Internet-reading public a barrage of information showing the falseness of the story.
I came to the idea of calling it ‘duplex’ after spending a bit of time reading the two aforementioned cases – Sandy Hook and Boston Marathon. I refuse to invest much time in this project, as the whole game consists of the baddy controlling people like me by wasting our time and distracting us from more important things.
How does the duplex system differ from previous ways of controlling the critics? I suppose it differs only in intensity. I am on record as saying that the humorous video “Pentalawn,” that mocks the notion of a 9-11 hit on the Pentagon, must have been made by insiders, as who else would have had cameras onsite so soon? Duplexing is like that, but it’s becoming more frequently used and is amazingly intense.
In the Sandy Hook and Marathon cases, the expose-type videos on Youtube utilize a distinct formula. They show close- ups of the actual event, plus on-the-spot remarks by the original witnesses, and then they tell the audience that these pictures and interviews are fake. They even show ‘actors’ playing major parts. A fake uncle of a child at Sandy Hook is seen rehearsing his lines for the TV news.
It sure is annoying. The producers of the videos, or the You-tubers who upload them, are not persons known to us already as truthers. (They are no Mary Maxwells, so to speak.) So can we not see, at a glance, that they aren’t doing a genuine job of getting at the truth? They don’t say how they suddenly came into possession of films taken at very tricky angles from a roof!
I deduce that the point of the madcap reporting about amputees in Boston is intended to make a truther give up on investigating, as the whole thing is so confusing. We see a man sitting up in a wheelchair with his leg blown off. Even if you had no desire to pin the crime on a CIA-type entity, you’d be hard put to believe that a person with such a traumatic injury could look calm. Wouldn’t he be writhing and slumping?
But before you can confidently proclaim “I now have proof that the Marathon thing was a hoax,” you are confronted with the fact that you don’t know if that wheelchair rider was really one of the victims identified by Boston police anyway. Maybe the duplexers came up with a separate set of pictures?
Granted, there is a lady amputee, who has been featured on mainstream TV, whom the duplexers debunk. The pitch to any truthers out there is that she is way too cheerful to be an orthopedic patient. The duplexers bring us to the point of thinking she must definitely be a fake, but not to the point at which one can call for the arrest of Boston’s mayor.
I attended federal court in Boston on the last day of the trial of an adjunct to the Marathon bomb case (a boy who threw away the bomber’s backpack). I wanted to say to the judge “You really are joking, aren’t you, Your Honor?” but needless to say I did not dare. The bottom line is that I don’t know for sure that the Marathon story is false.
How To Come to a Determination of Guilt?
There are, however, ‘outside’ ways of determining if those two stories are false flags, ways that do not require you to use the duplexers’ videos at all. The first way is to critique the original media story, looking for facts that don’t make sense.
In the report of the school shootout by Lone Gunman Adam Lanza, it says his kill-to-wounded ratio was very high, a feat that could only be achieved by an expert marksman. I think that alone is sufficient ‘proof’ that this young lad did not do it. Come to think of it, it’s proof that the ‘CIA’ did it! The media never queried Lanza’s astonishing kill-to-wounded figure, and the media is the handmaiden of the CIA.
In Boston’s early reports I saw one that told me something was definitely amiss. A doctor at the Mass. General Hospital said to the media right away “There are going to be a lot of amputations.” My late husband was a doctor and he taught me that no physician would spread alarm like that. OK, so my confidence about that is personal; I can’t force it on you, but maybe there is something you’d find that would persuade you.
Another method you could use is to survey the recent tactics of the media in putting us into a panic. For a short period of time they were working us up about Ebola, and for another period it was Islamic beheadings of Westerners. Yet there was never any attempt to show folks how to stay calm. So their very purpose must be to create panic, right?
It is my guess that the Ebola crisis and the beheadings were set up, yes I mean carried out by government. A peek at Len Horowitz’s 1996 book Emerging Viruses will tell you all you need to know about the laboratory creation of Ebola and AIDS. And Zbigniew Brzezinski announced years ago that the US, with his blessing, had trained the Islamic extremists. So it’s only logical to imagine that the same guys cooked up a school shootout and a Marathon disaster. They get around!
Are CIA Agents Nice People?
By the way, I have just read an article by Mike Adams about the FBI’s apparent foreknowledge of a bomb at the Marathon. He estimates that many FBI captures of ‘terrorists’ are not for real. He then says: “Keep in mind that I am in no way blaming the FBI for this. Most men and women who work for the FBI are upstanding citizens who would be appalled at such acts.”
Hey, wait a minute. How is Adams, or anyone, in a position to know that the members of any group are upstanding citizens? Imagine for a moment that a group is made up of absolute rascals? Would you be able to know that? How? I say Adams is talking crazy. Maybe what he means is that he hopes the members of the FBI are nice.
I have an observation to make about “the majority” of FBI. When the FBI is actually caught doing something wrong, the ‘nice members’ do not step forth to condemn that. Yet if I belonged to a club, and a member disgraced us, I would not hesitate (would you?) to distance myself from him or her, in order to preserve the reputation of my club. The FBI’s silence speaks volumes.
So, Mike Adams, I hereby disagree with you that “most men and women of the FBI are upstanding citizens.” I say instead that it looks to me that they are not. If they don’t condemn false-flag terrorist attacks, indeed if they don’t get into a tailspin about their colleagues having participated in such things, they are no friends of the people.
Likewise, the CIA. Some insiders have told me that CIA agents are lovely men and women. Some even say, and this sounds plausible, that many of them want to change the bad things that their organization does, and have to do it on the QT, under trying circumstances, and often in fear of their life.
Rayelan Allan is certain that her late ex-husband, Gunther Russbacher, was one of those internal dissidents. I believe her, at least with respect to that one person. (Together they founded Rumor Mill News, thank God.) But it would be irresponsible to just assume that any covert agency is doing good for the nation, in a secretive way. Secrecy automatically warrants suspicion. My best guess is that the CIA operates to carry out anti-society activities, and then protect the baddies.
As for the FBI, they are a “bureau of investigation” for Pete’s sake. And well paid, too. Can’t we ask them to investigate the many duplexers described above? Surely the Youtube uploaders who instantly come up with excellent critiques of the Sandy Hook chicanery are NOT Mary Maxwells. They are being paid to deluge us with criticism of the government in order to thwart our efforts to find out what’s going on.
I say: Get ’em.
Mary W Maxwell lives in Adelaide. Please see her freely downloadable books at marywmaxwell.com. Don’t forget the W.
Three Ways To Arrange or Re-Arrange a Society
Why have we become so bland, so timid? I think it’s because our Western culture starts out on the wrong foot, proclaiming the innate goodness of people. It imagines that only the few who might deviate are bad.
That is incorrect biology. As mammals, we are self-sufficient, self-contained, and therefore self-oriented. Might as well say: selfish. To survive, each of us has to give priority to Number One, much of the time.
If there were only a small number of us on Earth, and if there were plenty of resources, the issue of badness may or may not arise. Still, we evolved to have emotions related to jealousy, resentment, and ambition, so there would probably be some badness even on the proverbial desert island.
We are not in a small population now. We have densely filled the most habitable areas of the globe. Some of the resources are declining in availability. So what are our prospects for living in a peaceable society? Allow me to sketch three ways to arrange or re-arrange a society.
It’s always possible that a few ruthless individuals will forcibly control all others. This does occur in some mammal species. Let’s name it “the fur-seal option,” after a species that has a sole alpha who gets to perform all the matings in his group.
Another possibility is that people use their brains, or as we say here in Australia, their brines, to restrain the few from making life miserable for the many. Let’s call this “the law-brain option.” Rule-making is a standard behavior in the human species. It reflects many of our evolved traits, including obedience, the use of anger to prepare punishments for the wrongdoers, a sense of fairness (favors done, favors received), and idealism.
In the past two millennia, God was considered to be the chief lawgiver. I think this is a human way of saying “We have figured out, or believe we can figure out, a good way to arrange social relations and we’ve set this into fixed form by saying it came from on high.”
In other words, I think the religious approach is a variation on the law-brain option. But for those who insist that it really did come from on high, let’s call it “the religious option.” So, the three arrangements are: the fur-seal option, law-brain option, and religious option.
The Secular Presentation of the Law-Brain Option
The United States was formed in 1776, and Australia was set up for settlement by Europeans in 1788. Both nations inherited the law of England and both decided that the law should be freestanding as a secular development, not described as a gift from God (though every Aussie and Yank is free to say that it did indeed come from God).
The American Declaration of Independence starts out with two ridiculously incorrect statements: that “all men are created equal,” and that they have “a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” (It was originally slated to say “the pursuit of property.”) In actuality, men differ a lot from one another; even two brothers may be quite unequal. Liberty is not a “right” but a function of how much bullying is allowed to prevail. Isn’t that so?
Still, as the preamble of a social document is not the right place for a biology lecture, the Declaration’s wording can be considered good enough. It conveys: “We are about to write up the law-brain option and we may as well use symbolic statements or metaphors. The plan, Stan, is for us to try to make life nice for all. Will you be in it?”
The Australian Constitution was drafted as an act of the British Parliament in 1901, and is thus more constrained in its “anthropology.” Hence, I will concentrate here on the 1787 development of a constitution in the United States. James Madison took notes at the constitutional convention, so anyone can see the arguments that were made about practically every phrase of the parchment.
Brains Working at Philadelphia, 1787
The main thing at the convention in Philadelphia was that several of law-brain’s requirements were dealt with simultaneously. First, there was the delicate problem of establishing a legitimate authority. There’s no discoverable basis for such a thing when you’re starting a country from scratch, but the Framers of the Constitution at least knew enough to try to fit it to human nature as commonly understood. They accorded real participation to every person. (Except Sheila’s and slaves, you understand.)
Second, the men in the room, all fifty-five of them, had a sort of mandate from a particular state –- states that had been colonies only 12 years earlier! Each man had to be seen to protect the apparent interest of his state. For instance, a coastal state like New York wouldn’t want the parchment to forbid it to collect duties on goods arriving by boat. (In fact, though, the parchment did end up forbidding any such advantage to coastal states.)
Third, the Framers were keenly aware that untrammeled power would predictably try to have its way. Far from saying “Men are sweet,” their baseline was “Men are awful.” Thus they hit upon the solution of checking power by assigning official power to several groups and letting each jealously act as a brake on the others.
This is known as the separation of powers, combined with checks and balances. If all went according to Hoyle, a naughty executive leader could be chopped down by a majority of elected representatives. (The House can impeach; the Senate can convict upon those charges).
If a member of either chamber gets out of hand, two-thirds of his colleagues may oust him, no reason given.
No reason given? Well, I mean there is no appeal. If Congress wants him out, out he goes. Adam Clayton Powell objected to his ouster and the Judiciary gave him his seat back, but that was because the House had not followed the constitution when they kicked him out. Note the importance of writing down the exact legalities.
There are two other major players in the Constitution. One is “the states,” not in the sense in which I mentioned New York’s individual wishes, but in the sense of all 13 states retaining sovereignty, and not granting too much fertile ground to the feds to grow their power in.
The other player is “the people.” They gained strength once the Bill of Rights was signed in blood (so to speak). However, two of the powers of the people are weak. First is the right to amend the constitution; it’s highly subject to interference by the state and, God help us, the media.
Second is the airy-fairy notion that whatever powers have not been explicitly granted to government will remain under the control of the people. If you’ve got a culture like the New Hampshire libertarians, this may work out, but I consider it too wishy-washy. Most folks don’t grasp it.
The Fur-Seal Option and the Religious Option
Let us be aware that, at any time, the law-brain option can be overwhelmed by either of the other two options. If a society fails to control its miscreants — which, once law has been established, means anyone who flouts the law — there is a chance for the fur-seal option to come into play.
This is a more essential and ongoing issue than today’s folks realize. As soon as a bunch of bullies, or even just clever deceivers, get to a point where they “run” others, the typical individual starts to feel nervous.
Although he can’t pinpoint what the problem is, he does observe how things are going and quickly loses his sense that his “rights” can prevail. Before you know it, he may start to acknowledge the prerogatives of the fur seal! (Under feudalism in Europe, there was supposedly a droit du seigneur, meaning that the lord of the manor could have a go at any virgin on his estate. How typical.)
As for the religious option standing by, ready to take over when people’s access to resources goes out of balance, I assume this has played a big role in history. Folks who feel the unfairness of their life will naturally be pleased to believe in a God that somehow has the power to fix it up.
Leaders who say they speak on God’s behalf may easily absorb the legitimacy of that divine being. That’s just how we are.
Compare this to the fur-seal option, in which it’s the natural drive for power that causes the change from a fair-minded society to a kowtowing one. The religious option isn’t a move in the direction of control by a few humans over a kowtowing multitude. Rather, it’s a way of using God to legitimate the law of kindness –- forcibly.
Ah, but thereby hangs a tale. Any given religious leader could be a closet fur-seal! It sounds blasphemous for me to say that. Indeed the rule “Don’t blaspheme” is written deep in our evolved brain; probably it reflects the need of the group to respect the wishes of their ruler. But as such it’s available for mischief. Gotta watch out for that mischief!
Trying To Maintain the Law-Brain Option
During my lifetime, Americans achieved near perfection of the law-brain option. I watched it happen. Now that I live in Australia I can see that there are some amazing law-brain achievements here, too. One is the administrative crackdown on businesses that tend toward monopoly. Competition among companies is itself a protected value!
The US has had the Sherman Anti-trust Act since 1890, to perform a similar mission, but it’s hardly ever called upon. The powerful (i.e., the fur-seal types) see to it that members of the legislature and judiciary wear blindfolds if they happen to come to the page in the law book that has the word “Sherman” on it. In US, business “growth” is a more honored concept than restraint on monopoly.
Also, Australia has a far more generous –- if that is the right word –- way of distributing resources, namely, through the welfare system. If you don’t have a job, you’re likely to qualify for “the dole.” Such socialism is ingrained; people culturally take it for granted, not even bothering to say that it’s a child of a law-brain effort.
Or is it? As with the way the religious option can be a disguised fur-seal option, the law-brain option can also be a front for the dastardly fur seals. It’s at least arguable that the habit of paying a large section of the population to stay out of work creates dependence and vulnerability.
For people to feel they can demand “rights,” they need, psychologically, to have a sense of the basis of those rights. In Australia, most people who get a welfare check express the right as being an obligation by “government” to “give” them something. They thus reify government.
But who is government? It’s seen as being “the pollies,” that is, the politicians in federal or state parliament. These are considered, in Australian culture, to be the persons least likely to engage in law-brain! Rather there’s always a list of motivations at hand to explain what a pollie goes in for. He works, it is said, for his own benefit.
I think this emphasis on the naughty pollies is a dangerous distraction. They may individually get benefits (and they “rort” the system, meaning they take more than is due), but c’mon, everybody knows that in some way they are doing the bidding of outside forces. Pollies are kowtowers, not kowtowees. In Oz, then, there are some fur-seal types running the show and no one can see them!
I started this essay by claiming that we are too timid, and that it may be attributable to the fact that we got off on the wrong foot, proclaiming man as basically good. I praised the law-brain option as the most desirable way to arrange a society, and said that the one to avoid is the fur-seal option, where a bully can get away with anything. (I referred to the religious option as being possibly very similar to the law-brain one, but with God’s name on it.)
I now say that in order to promote the law-brain option, we need always to articulate the likelihood that human selfishness will bring about a fur-seal kind of social arrangement. Constant vigilance is needed. I think it would be better to err on the side of saying we are bad.
Here, then, are my recommendations: Admit our biological selfishness, encourage the law-brain method of arriving at nice social arrangements, and look for a fur seal under every bed.
POSTSCRIPT: I realize I’ve omitted to mention the positive work that’s needed, to build social trust and to let people’s goodwill be accumulated. I even believe in extolling “virtue.” But I think it’ll be easier to do that if we first identify the baddy thing as being inherent in everyone. WE are the problem.
Mary W Maxwell, PhD, LLB, is a political scientist with sociobiological leanings and show-biz longings. With Dalia Mae Lachlan she is producing a comedy for the Adelaide Fringe in March, entitled Puppetry of the Watermelons. See her website maryWmaxwell.com or email firstname.lastname@example.org
Blame Doctors for Medical Crime, Please
In my book, Prosecution for Treason, prosecuting, or at least blaming, is a main focus. I do not get a personal kick out of seeing somebody hanged or jailed, but I feel that folks needs to become more punishment-oriented in order that they will stop seeing the sins of the authorities as acceptable and inevitable. Sins committed by authorities bespeak a flaw in our social arrangements. We should do better. We can easily do better.
My Treason book calls for prosecution of legislators who make policy, and judges who do wrong by failing to identify as illegal the laws that “make war on the people.” Congress passes laws that “surrender the sovereignty” of the US to some outside power, such as NATO, or the WTO. That seems quintessentially treasonous.
Also, in 1995, US legislators made no response to the eyewitness testimony by victims of MK-Ultra mind control, such as Claudia Mullen. This is treason on Congress’s part in the form of being an “accomplice to treason,” or an “accessory after the fact.” I claim it meets the constitutional definition of treason, “levying war against the United States,” as the MK-Ultra torture of children was as violent as war.
This article is about the role of doctors. In another book of mine (Consider the Lilies: A Review of 18 Cures for Cancer), I gave some doctors a hard time while being sympathetic to many others. Lately I am more willing to place blame on any and all doctors for the sin of silence committed by their official groups, such as the American Medical Association and the Royal College of Physicians. Not to mention blaming them for sins of commission by any group of which doctors are the building blocks, such as the National Institutes of Health, or the American Cancer Society. Get those docs!
I think I see a bit of new light on this. Consider these four points: Point 1. Some doctors do bad things. Point 2. The prestige of the big medical institutions can be used diminish the public’s awareness of medical evil. Point 3. The little doctor, who might otherwise rail against evil doctors, is overwhelmed by the glory of his profession (as members of all professions probably are), and simply accepts their silence. Point 4. Criminal charges are not brought; consequently no one gets punished.
This has got to stop. The public surely wants their doctors to be forthright about anything that is going wrong in the profession. They should indeed be angry at their particular doctor if he, by his silence, endorses what those big medical institutions do.
The Case of Aubrey Levin, MD
The thing that made me sit down and write this was a mention, in Gumshoenews.com, on November 14, 2014, that a doctor from South Africa had forcibly subjected gay men in the military to gender reassignment, during the apartheid era. The writer (Gumshoe editor Dalia Mae Lachlan) said Levin had escaped to Canada and then got prosecuted there, this year “on another matter.” He is now in jail.
Worked in Ward 22, Voortrekkerhoogte Military Hospital – near Pretoria, South Africa, where he was known as Dr Shock. Later, Regional director for the Regional Psychiatric Centre – Saskatoon, Canada
Or should I say “he is now allegedly in jail. Which of us citizens really knows if the punishment is carried out? Anyway, some interesting details came out in his case. First of all, he was able to immigrate to Canada, despite having refused to testify to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa. Who reviewed his case for admission to Canada? Who reviewed the granting of his medical license in Alberta? Who reviewed his appointment as adjunct professor of psychiatry at the University of Calgary?
My sense of those kinds of vetting is that they are rigorous. Hence I am guessing that he was a protected sort of person. Having been naughty in one country he is able to find haven in another, all by way of the interconnectedness of the powerful, globally. (But I cannot say for sure.) There were other lapses of the law involved, and these added up to his ability to ruin many people’s lives.
The case for which Aubrey Levin is now serving a 5-year sentence has to do with his sexual assault on a patient, during treatment. The man said he reported it to authorities but was not believed. Stop right there! Did he “lay an information” to police? He should have; that puts the matter in writing. Did he complain to the Licensing Board of Alberta? He should have, as will be referred to below.
Then he purchased a spy-camera ring and caught the doctor on video making sexual advances to him during treatment. Dr Levin’s main group of patients were prisoners. Again we may ask: Who decided that this doctor would hold a job that has huge power over helpless prisoners? God help us all when we are imprisoned someday.
What Should Have Been Done about Levin’s Behavior?
I don’t know the particulars of Levin’s South African misdeeds. I do know that it is always easy for a doctor, even regarding the “aversion therapy” given to gays, to claim that it was being done to help the patient. I’ll bet a doctor could do anything to anyone and say it was meant therapeutically — and most people would accept that interpretation. This is a very serious problem. We fall into this trap much too often.
The solution here is to battle such an interpretation the minute it is enunciated. The proper place to do this is at the Licensing Board. Each state and province has a board, made up of a majority of doctors and a few citizens, that grants licenses and can revoke them. It may also give the lesser disciplinary punishment of temporary suspension of license. (Lesser, but still something any doctor dreads as it affects his reputation forever.)
Typical causes of revocation or suspension are incompetence, unethical practice (say, taking money for a false insurance claim), and the prescribing of narcotics to the doctor’s family members. Meetings of the licensing board are held on a regular schedule and the results are published. Revocation of license is not a criminal matter, nor does it result in compensation to the aggrieved party.
But either of those judicial procedures can additionally take place, of course. A patient can sue and the state can indict. Most people opt for suing the doctor. Consider this important fact in human nature: if you take you complaint about a doctor to your lawyer, she can envision drawing a fee from your winnings in a lawsuit, but she will get little for urging you to push for a prosecution.
Worse, her instinct may be to avoid having her tires slashed if she pushes for prosecution. (Or getting strontium 38, a point about which Dalia has just received a message that sounds like a threat – “Tiny piece of SR38 would mean the end of her.” in Comments to her article on NIST!!!)
Is a Vaccination an Assault?
Let’s talk about patient’s rights. Every doctor and nurse is well aware that he can give medication only to a consenting patient. (Consent may be assumed if the person is unconscious). It’s a brave nurse who forces a shot on a resisting adult! Yet the public does not know this. We tend to think a decision made by a doctor or a hospital for our own good is enforceable at their pleasure. Perhaps we think: “They need to act this way, as they would get in trouble for not doing so.”
Forget it. You are in charge of what goes into your body. If someone puts something into you against your will, that is plainly an assault, by law. (If they merely put a cotton bud in your ear, against your will, that’s an assault – and they know it.) See Joan Campbell’s collection of mothers’ reports at Followingvaccinations.com. It is a stunning list of assaults, but it does not raise the issue of criminality.
The giving of a Hepatitis-B shot to a newborn requires actual written consent from the mother. Many mothers say No, but they later find that the nurse gave the shot “by mistake.” What is the correct procedure here? The mother or father should lay an information with police. If the police won’t let them, they should bring their (very short) report to the local courthouse.
I venture to guess that the nurse did not ‘forget.’ Rather she is operating under pressure from doctors. (Note: the Hep-B shot is typically given before the baby is one-hour old!) She may be hoping you will complain officially, and then she will be freed from the pressure. I’ll bet the doctors, also, want to stop giving Hep-B to newborns.
Last week at the website ageofautism.com, a nurse named Frances Ruzicka lamented that she was recently forced to take a tdap vaccination, or be fired. (The ‘t’ is for tetanus.) Her doctor faxed that she had adverse reaction to a past tetanus shot. She sent his note to the employer’s Core Committee, which consisted of four doctors and two nurses. They determined that she must take the shot. She now has very bad symptoms, including cellulitis and high blood pressure.
What should she do? I think she should take each of them to the licensing board. (She can’t say she was criminally assaulted, as she did give consent.) She can claim that each of the six deciders acted wrongly, against the Hippocratic oath: they harmed the patient.
This would be a beautiful case! In the context of the Board meeting the six “accused” health professionals must each be judged separately, so they won’t be able to slip past criticism on the tempting story that “it’s for the public good.” They will have to answer the simple question: Was it medically right or wrong for them as individuals to pressure Frances to take the tdap shot?
Just think, the six members of the Committee and the various members of the disciplinary board will all be made to put on their thinking caps. How amazing is that?
Mary W Maxwell styles herself “Gumshoe’s man in Adelaide.” She and Dalia Mae Lachlan, should they live long enough, intend to put on an Adelaide Fringe performance in mid-March (just before the Ides), 2015, where you would be very welcome.