Doctors Who Are Opposed To
Compulsory Vaccinations
By Julie Foster

Physicians' association calls itself 'the Delta Force of private medicine'...
In an age when doctors' associations routinely advocate gun-control measures, expanded government-funded health insurance and ever-further regulation of tobacco products, one organization goes against the flow, supporting free-market principles in the world of health care.
Since its founding in 1943, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons has dedicated itself to "preserving the sanctity of the patient-physician relationship and the practice of private medicine."
"AAPS believes in the oath of Hippocrates and that the physician should work for his patient, not some third party," said Jane Orient, M.D., executive director of AAPS.
The Hippocratic oath is a pronouncement of medical ethics taken by physicians. Originally, the oath included a promise to do no harm to patients "and in like manner I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion."
"It's interesting that the 'do no harm' clause has been eliminated from the supposedly updated oaths," Orient noted. "We're seeing an inversion of medical ethics lately that is based on population ethics, in which physicians are being indoctrinated to believe that it's OK to sacrifice the individual to the good of the whole."
One such area is mandated vaccinations. In an extraordinary move, the AAPS recently voted to oppose compulsory vaccinations. "There are increasing numbers of mandatory childhood vaccines, to which children are often subjected without meaningful informed consent, including information about potential adverse side effects," said an official statement.
The resolution goes on to assert that "safety testing of many vaccines is limited and the data are unavailable for independent scrutiny, so that mass vaccination is equivalent to human experimentation and subject to the Nuremberg Code, which requires voluntary informed consent."
On other social issues, AAPS takes a limited-government position.
"Public health approaches can be used as a pretext for state intrusion into private affairs," said Orient. "You have to know what people are doing so that you can try to change their behavior."
For example, on the issue of tobacco regulation, AAPS stands apart from other professional associations, which advocate government involvement.
Stated Orient, "We don't think people should smoke but it should not be used as an excuse for government intrusion into private decisions."
In contrast, the American Medical Association actively supports anti-tobacco programs sponsored by government agencies. In a March letter to the Senate Committee on Appropriations, the AMA wrote: "On behalf of its 300,000 physician and medical student members, the American Medical Association urges the Senate Appropriations Committee to continue to devote needed resources to the federal government's anti-tobacco programs."
Additionally, the letter expressed support for the Clinton administration's lawsuit against the tobacco industry. "The AMA strongly supports adequate funding for the Department of Justice to pursue this important lawsuit on behalf of U.S. taxpayers," the group wrote.
Similarly, the American Academy of Pediatrics has taken the notion of "comprehensive" health care to a new level, advising pediatricians to question children on gun issues and media exposure. As reported in WorldNetDaily, a California doctor even decided to drop a child from his care after a parent expressed disapproval of a doctor-initiated discussion about guns.
Despite the trend toward tighter alliances between medical professionals and government agencies, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons continues to advocate for private, individual-specific and patient-directed health care. A champion of what it calls "true free-market reforms (such as Medical Savings Accounts) as an alternate to more-of-the-same nostrums that caused the crisis in medical costs," the group presses on in fulfilling its mission.
It has won a number of legal victories "for the rights of patients and physicians," according to its website, including:
"Protecting physicians against threats of Health and Human Services' sanctions for unassigned billing for laboratory tests at a time when such billing was perfectly legal (AAPS v. Bowen I and II);
"Establishing the right of physicians to be heard in federal court in a challenge to a fee freeze (Whitney v. Heckler);
"Challenging the Health Care Financing Administration's attempt to abrogate the freedom of patients and physicians to contract privately if no Medicare benefits are claimed (Stewart v. Sullivan);
Bringing to light the illegal secret operations of the President's Task Force on Health Care Reform (AAPS v. Clinton)." Orient summed up the organization's philosophy in one sentence: "We believe in the U.S. Constitution, and we believe in scientific integrity." The group, which calls itself "the Delta Force of private medicine," can be reached through its website.

This Site Served by TheHostPros