Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights …
Noting the United Nations International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 16 December 1966, the United Nations International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination of 21 December 1965.

*

Waarom bestaan daar so iets soos menseregte as daar soveel dubbel standaarde gehandhaaf word, regdeur die spektrum, alle kontinente en meeste regerings pas dubbel standaarde toe en bevoordeel slegs die meerderheid en elites vandag.

BLACK empowerment and Employment Equity legislations discriminate against the white minority people of South Africa – Government SA and supporters of B-BBEE and EE are all racists that discriminate against whites.   Also sport quotas in legislations.  This is ongoing since 1994.

*

Recalled the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 10 December 1948 , the Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights adopted by the General Conference of UNESCO on 11 November 1997 and the International Declaration on Human Genetic Data adopted by the General Conference of UNESCO on 16 October 2003,

Article 8 – Respect for human vulnerability and personal integrity

In applying and advancing scientific knowledge, medical practice and associated technologies, human vulnerability should be taken into account. Individuals and groups of special vulnerability should be protected and the personal integrity of such individuals respected.

>

BLACK empowerment and Employment Equity legislations discriminate against the white minority people of South Africa – Government SA and supporters of B-BBEE and EE are all racists that discriminate against whites.

Article 10 – Equality, justice and equity

The fundamental equality of all human beings in dignity and rights is to be respected so that they are treated justly and equitably.

Article 28 – Denial of acts contrary to human rights, fundamental freedoms and human dignity

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any claim to engage in any activity or to perform any act contrary to human rights, fundamental freedoms and human dignity.

http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=31058&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html#:~:text=Article%206%20%E2%80%93%20Consent&text=The%20consent%20should%2C%20where%20appropriate,consent%20of%20the%20person%20concerned.

*

BLACK empowerment and Employment Equity legislations discriminate against the white minority people of South Africa – Government SA and supporters of B-BBEE and EE are all racists that discriminate against whites.

UNESCO – DISCRIMINATION AND RACISM

Article 11 – Non-discrimination and non-stigmatization

No individual or group should be discriminated against or stigmatized on any grounds, in violation of human dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Article 12 – Respect for cultural diversity and pluralism

The importance of cultural diversity and pluralism should be given due regard. However, such considerations are not to be invoked to infringe upon human dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms, nor upon the principles set out in this Declaration, nor to limit their scope.

http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=31058&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html#:~:text=Article%206%20%E2%80%93%20Consent&text=The%20consent%20should%2C%20where%20appropriate,consent%20of%20the%20person%20concerned.

*

Noting the United Nations International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 16 December 1966, the United Nations International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination of 21 December 1965, the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women of 18 December 1979, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child of 20 November 1989, the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity of 5 June 1992, the Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1993, the UNESCO Recommendation on the Status of Scientific Researchers of 20 November 1974, the UNESCO Declaration on Race and Racial Prejudice of 27 November 1978, the UNESCO Declaration on the Responsibilities of the Present Generations Towards Future Generations of 12 November 1997, the UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity of 2 November 2001, the ILO Convention 169 concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries of 27 June 1989, the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture which was adopted by the FAO Conference on 3 November 2001 and entered into force on 29 June 2004, the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) annexed to the Marrakech Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization, which entered into force on 1 January 1995, the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health of 14 November 2001 and other relevant international instruments adopted by the United Nations and the specialized agencies of the United Nations system, in particular the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO),

*

Also noting international and regional instruments in the field of bioethics, including the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine: Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine of the Council of Europe, which was adopted in 1997 and entered into force in 1999, together with its Additional Protocols, as well as national legislation and regulations in the field of bioethics and the international and regional codes of conduct and guidelines and other texts in the field of bioethics, such as the Declaration of Helsinki of the World Medical Association on Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects, adopted in 1964 and amended in 1975, 1983, 1989, 1996 and 2000 and the International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects of the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences, adopted in 1982 and amended in 1993 and 2002,

http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=31058&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html#:~:text=Article%206%20%E2%80%93%20Consent&text=The%20consent%20should%2C%20where%20appropriate,consent%20of%20the%20person%20concerned.

*

What is the Nuremberg Code about?  The Nuremberg Code aimed to protect human subjects from enduring the kind of cruelty and exploitation the prisoners endured at concentration camps. The 10 elements of the code are: Voluntary consent is essential. The results of any experiment must be for the greater good of society.

Nuremberg code turns 60

The Nuremberg code evokes a dark time for medicine, yet remains a powerful symbol in inspiring the medical profession to stand up for its Hippocratic values and protect individuals from harmful medical experiments.

For the past 60 years, a series of ethical texts and instruments have relayed the Nuremberg court’s opinion,³ and completed or interpreted the code in the multifaceted context of medical experimentation.

The medical profession thus draws on a vast body of ethical reflection to ensure that scientific advances do not prevail over the health and safety of individuals without their fully informed consent in medical experiments.

However, we ask whether modern ethics and its binding instruments can always secure full protection to experimental subjects and beyond them, to the recipients of health care. In a context of relentless competition for resources among scientific institutions, ethical vigilance is a permanent necessity. Falsification of scientific results and the premature release of drugs on the market show that modern ethics does not in itself provide full protection against scientific misconduct, especially when it occurs beyond the critical step of malevolent or unsafe experiments involving human beings.

Bioethics experts Paul Weindling and Volker Roelcke suggest that current bioethical thinking may use an incomplete picture of the historical context of the Nuremberg code. Volker Roelcke writes: “rather than being the result of a coercive state, Nazi medicine illustrates how medical researchers and their representative bodies […] co-operated with and even manipulated a totalitarian state and political system relying on expert opinion, in order to gain resources for the conduct of research without any moral and legal regulation.”

He states that Nazi doctors “followed the intrinsic logic of their scientific disciplines and used the legally and ethically unrestricted access to human beings created by the context of the political system and the conditions of war.”

By centring exclusively on the war crimes and not on their broader context, the judges at Nuremberg issued the code in order solely to set the boundaries for “permissible experiments” and tackle the difficult question of the biomedical research conducted on human subjects outside Germany during the war. The court thus failed to produce a broader legal doctrine protecting individuals against harm induced by scientific practices at large, including not only human beings as subjects of medical experiments but also as consumers and beneficiaries of science’s outcomes.

https://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/85/8/07-045443/en/

*

BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL No 7070 Volume 313: Page 1448,
7 December 1996

Introduction
The judgment by the war crimes tribunal at Nuremberg laid down 10 standards to
which physicians must conform when carrying out experiments on human subjects in
a new code that is now accepted worldwide.
This judgment established a new standard of ethical medical behaviour for the post
World War II human rights era. Amongst other requirements, this document
enunciates the requirement of voluntary informed consent of the human subject. The
principle of voluntary informed consent protects the right of the individual to control
his own body.
This code also recognizes that the risk must be weighed against the expected
benefit, and that unnecessary pain and suffering must be avoided.
This code recognizes that doctors should avoid actions that injure human patients.
The principles established by this code for medical practice now have been extended
into general codes of medical ethics.

The Nuremberg Code (1947)
Permissible Medical Experiments
The great weight of the evidence before us to effect that certain types of medical
experiments on human beings, when kept within reasonably well-defined bounds,
conform to the ethics of the medical profession generally. The protagonists of the
practice of human experimentation justify their views on the basis that such
experiments yield results for the good of society that are unprocurable by other
methods or means of study. All agree, however, that certain basic principles must
be observed in order to satisfy moral, ethical and legal concepts:
1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This
means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent;
should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without
the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching,
or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient
knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved
as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This
latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision
by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature,
duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is
to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected;
and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his
participation in the experiment.
The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests
upon each individual who initiates, directs, or engages in the experiment. It is
a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with
impunity.
2. The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of
society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random
and unnecessary in nature.
3. The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal
experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other
problem under study that the anticipated results justify the performance of the
experiment.
4. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical
and mental suffering and injury.
5. No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to
believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those
experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.
6. The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the
humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.
7. Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to
protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury,
disability or death.
8. The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons.
The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of
the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.
9. During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to
bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state
where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.
10.During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared
to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe,
in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgment required
of him, that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury,
disability, or death to the experimental subject.
For more information see Nuremberg Doctor’s Trial, BMJ 1996;313(7070):1445-75.

Click to access BMJ_No_7070_Volume_313_The_Nuremberg_Code.pdf

**

NIGERIA

Part IV of Nigeria’s proposed Infectious Disease Bill, also known as NCDC Bill (Article 46 – 49) and titled ‘Vaccination and Other Prophylaxis,’ seeks to compel Nigerians to embrace vaccination and other prophylaxis, in contradiction of Article 6 of the UNESCO Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights.

Adebayo Folorunsho-Francis

The proposed Control of Infectious Diseases Bill 2020 is a violation of Article 6 of the 2005 UNESCO Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights, PUNCH HealthWise can report.

It stipulates that any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be conducted with free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information.

On the contrary, Article 6 of the UNESCO Declaration stresses the importance of consent on the issue of vaccination and other activities that relate to human rights.

 

NCDC Bill violates 2005 UNESCO Declaration on bioethics, human rights