Our institutions are hollowed out.

This is what totalitarianism looks like.

Two examples from here in the UK:

The first is The Royal College of Nursing, which says (of the recent protests):

“These scenes around the country are nothing short of despicable racism - they have no place in our society. As an anti-racist organisation, the RCN will take a lead part in tackling this hatred.”

So they have issued new guidelines which state that “where there is discriminatory behaviour, including racism” a refusal to treat or the withdrawal of care may be justified.

The RCN announcement can be found here. The new guidance is here.

Aside from the concerns - expressed in this article - over a professional body essentially acting as a social justice organisation (as well as simply parroting the government position that anyone who expresses any concern whatsoever about unfettered immigration must automatically be a racist), this represents an egregious abandonment of longstanding ethical principles.

Who is to judge what is racist? And how? Are 95-year olds who don’t keep up with the latest approved language and use outmoded words such as “coloured” to be refused treatment because they are “racist”? According to these guidelines that could well be justified.

What about a cheeky laddish comment by a male adolescent towards an attractive female nurse? Well that’s misogyny, which is discriminatory - so no treatment?

It’s all very well responding “don’t be silly, nurses will exercise discretion”, but the whole point of sacrosanct ethical principles (and inalienable rights for that matter) is that they don’t depend on the prevailing circumstances, since the consideration of such leaves far too much room for post-hoc justification of - well anything, really - leaving patients frighteningly vulnerable to the ideological whims of their carers.

The second example is with the SRA - the Solicitors Regulation Authority:

Lois Bayliss is a solicitor with a record of many years of unblemished service to her clients.

As reported in the Law Gazette:

A tribunal has denied a solicitor accused of improper behaviour over the sending of anti-vaccine letters the chance to bring medical expert witness evidence to her final hearing.

Lois Bayliss applied to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal today to be allowed to adduce expert statements on medicine and ethics when her case is heard next month.

Dr Peter Fields, for Bayliss, said the solicitor had a right to use this evidence to defend herself in the light of assumptions being made in the Solicitors Regulation Authority’s case. But the tribunal rejected the application, urging both parties to focus on the nature of the allegations rather than enter into wider discussions about Covid-19 vaccines.

Bayliss, the sole director of Broad Yorkshire Law based in Sheffield, is alleged to have improperly sought to have relied upon her standing and role as a solicitor.

The SRA alleges that over the course of less than three weeks in February 2022, she sent letters to up to 450 individuals at up to 237 schools and GP surgeries threatening that recipients would face criminal and/or civil liability.

Bayliss, who has an unblemished 17-year record as a solicitor, has made it clear that she intends to defend herself against the allegations. A Gofundme page organised by her has raised almost £38,000 through 1,100 donations and has a fundraising target of £200,000. According to the page, this figure is to cover the SRA’s estimated £90,750 costs, defence barrister fees and a ‘potentially substantial fine’.

The tribunal has urged both parties to focus on the nature of the allegations rather than enter into wider discussions about Covid-19 vaccines.

Fields said that Bayliss held a ‘genuine belief’ in what she was arguing for and so her integrity could not be questioned. But the SRA’s case was that she was acting ‘against mainstream science’ and it referred to a ‘body of evidence’ against her anti-vaccine beliefs, so therefore she needed to be able to bring experts who would provide an alternative view.

Fields said that the experts potentially relied on were not ‘tin foil hat-wearing idealogues’ but rather professors who could explain why she acted as she did. ‘They are not allowing Miss Bayliss to prove scientifically that what she said was correct and cannot be misleading,’ added Fields.

Ben Tankel, for the SRA, said it was not the regulator’s role to determine the merits of Bayliss’ views on vaccines, adding that the case was about alleged threats of legal action brought by Bayliss.

Alison Kellett, chair of the tribunal panel, said the SDT was ‘struggling to see where and why’ expert evidence on vaccines was relevant to the allegations. Dismissing the application to adduce expert evidence, Kellett said Bayliss’ right to defend herself was not prejudiced by the decision. She added that parties should focus on the ‘real issues’ in the case – namely what the impact of receiving these letters was on non-legally qualified people and whether they would be perceived as threatening.

So, just to be clear:

• The SRA’s case was that she was acting ‘against mainstream science’ and it referred to a ‘body of evidence’ against her anti-vaccine beliefs.

• However she is being refused the opportunity to call experts to challenge that evidence and present alternative data to support her reasoning.

How Orwellian is that? The tribunal is basically saying “mainstream science says you are wrong and we aren’t going to let you argue against it”.

This is consistent with the complete lack of debate permitted anywhere by any major government around the safety of the covid “vaccines”, and this appears to be an example of a supposedly independent institution doing the government’s dirty work in suppressing debate.

Postscript 20 Aug 2024:

The comments to this article are well worth reading. In particular, I liked this illustration of the absurdity of the current direction of travel:

And this comment made me think that in the above I could have made the point that what happened during the “pandemic” years was not a mere aberration, but rather a manifestation of the creeping politicisation of healthcare delivery: