“We have disregarded the fundamental principle of First Do No Harm.” – Catholic World Report

Posted by

“It behooves us to protect children as pediatricians,” says pediatrician and bioethicist Dr. Monique Robles about COVID vaccinations, “and this is not occurring when the risks, known and unknown, outweigh any benefits.”

“We have disregarded the fundamental principle of First Do No Harm.” – Catholic World Report
(Image: Taylor Brandon/Unsplash.com)

Dr. Monique Robles

Dr. Monique Robles is a board certified pediatric critical care physician and bioethicist. She received her Doctorate of Medicine from the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School, Dallas, Texas, in 2001 and completed a pediatric residency, chief residency, and pediatric critical care fellowship at Children’s Medical Center, Dallas, Texas (2001-2008). She received a Certificate in Health Care Ethics from the National Catholic Bioethics Center and completed a Master of Science degree in Bioethics in 2018 at the University of Mary, Bismarck, North Dakota.

Dr. Robles is a member of the Catholic Medical Association, the American College of Pediatricians, and is an Associate Scholar at the Charlotte Lozier Institute. She is also on the advisory board of the Truth for Health Foundation, the advisory council of Catholics for Preservation of Life, and the advisory board for Advocates Protecting Children.

Last month Dr. Robles addressed the subject of COVID vaccines on her blog, “Human Dignity Speaks”. In a recent interview with CWR, she discussed her “Open Letter to Parents Regarding Pfizer SARS CoV-2 Vaccination of Children”, the principle of informed consent, and mass pediatric vaccination strategies.

CWR: What inspired you to write your “Open Letter to Parents”?

Monique Robles: Initially, my inspiration came from my role as a physician caring for critically ill children. I have a great responsibility to safeguard the health and well-being of the young. This inspiration was further fueled by the concerning initiative to “vaccinate” children with genetic material for a disease in which they are not the susceptible population.

CWR: Your “Open Letter” lays out four principles of “truly informed consent.”  Are those principles derived from your background as a physician, or from a bioethics perspective?

Monique Robles: This framework comes from both perspectives.https://dtyry4ejybx0.cloudfront.net/images/blank.html

As a pediatric critical care physician, there are interventions and procedures I perform in which I must obtain informed consent. In order to truly obtain this consent, I must have a strong grasp of these categories as well as the aspects of the intervention(s) in order to convey the information effectively to the parent/guardian. In addition, I must be assured that the consenting party understands what has been communicated.

The awareness of the gravity of obtaining informed consent in vulnerable populations (i.e. children) is heightened by my understanding of this principle as a bioethicist.

CWR: Do you feel the average parent can truly give informed consent to the vaccine for their child right now?  In particular, I am thinking of the vast number of parents who have been conditioned to accept a growing number of vaccines for their children as a pre-requisite for school attendance.

Monique Robles: I do not have confidence that parents are able to give truly informed consent.

Vaccines are intended to prevent disease and interrupt transmission. The current anti-SARS CoV-2 injections are not effective at either of these.

Many physicians are relying solely on CDC recommendations without either considering the seriousness of the known risks, such as myocarditis, or simply believing such risks to be acceptable. However, anything above minimal risk should not be authorized in this population because the benefit/risk ratio becomes unfavorable – which can be categorized as an act of malfeasance.

If parents were truly informed, they would likely not consent to receive an injection that offers no significant therapeutic benefit. Furthermore, we as a medical community should not be advocating for it to be given to children.

CWR: You refer to the “great effort to vaccinate a population in which the disease has minimal to nil risk of severe infection.”  What do you mean?

Monique Robles: There is a mass vaccination campaign within the medical community targeted towards children (private clinics, hospitals, public health clinics, pharmacies, schools).

When in the history of medicine have we attempted to entice children (and parents) to accept an emergently authorized medical intervention that provides no benefit and then incentivize it by providing monetary compensation as is happening across the country? This is unethical.

CWR: If the push to vaccinate children is not due to the risk of severe infection, what is behind it?  Is it to prevent the spread of disease to adults?

Monique Robles: Even if vaccinating children prevented the spread among adults, children should never be considered the safeguards for adults.

At this point, it is unclear the scientific rationale to vaccinate children. We know these products do not interrupt transmission as evidenced by the number of individuals developing COVID after vaccination, and the risk of hospitalization and death is rare in children who develop COVID.

The risk of MIS-C (multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children) a rare condition that occurs after a SARS CoV-2 infection may be reduced but it is not guaranteed, and there are case reports of this syndrome post vaccination.

CWR: There is a widespread assumption that new cases are primarily spread by the unvaccinated. This seems to be a reason for the push to vaccinate children. Is this a true assumption?

Monique Robles: It may well be a component of this push. One of the CDC’s proposed benefits of vaccinating children is to increase society’s “confidence” with a safe return to schools. Yet, the children are not the super spreaders of COVID. In Sweden, schools remained open and the children “fared better than children in other countries during the pandemic, both in terms of education and mental health.”

CWR: Even if this were a true assumption, would you still have grave concerns about the Pfizer Sars Cov-2 vaccine that is being offered to children? Are we sacrificing our children for the sake of adults?

Monique Robles: Absolutely. These “vaccines” are unlike any other vaccination on the immunization schedule for children. These products have not gone through the 5-10 years of development that include safety and efficacy trials. The estimated study completion date for the Pfizer mRNA injection is not until May 2023. This is nothing other than experimentation on children because we do not know the long term risks and the amount of related adverse events reported after the injection is being largely ignored.

CWR: You state that the risk of severe side effects from getting the vaccine is much greater than the risk from getting COVID.  Can you run the numbers, in a nutshell?  Are we seeing children dying from getting the COVID vaccine?  Isn’t there always a small number of people who have an adverse reaction—or even die—from getting vaccines?

Monique Robles: The CDC reports 107 deaths [as of the time of this interview] in children ages 5-11 (the current age group to receive EUA) attributed to COVID since January 1, 2020. The details of these deaths and other contributing factors should be made available for we need to know if the death was due to COVID or with COVID.

As of today, the VAERS data for deaths post vaccination in the 12-17 age range is 31. (There has not been enough time for the VAERS database to reflect the younger population.) All of these deaths should be fully investigated, as well. And, as many claim, what is reported in the VAERS database is only “the tip of the iceberg.”

The more an intervention such as a vaccine is administered, the more likely an adverse reaction or death will inevitably will occur. But, when the number of deaths reported in VAERS after the injection of the SARS CoV-2 vaccines exceeds the number of deaths reported from all other vaccinations administered in the past three decades, then there is an urgency to pause and investigate this detrimental trend with due diligence.

CWR: After you published your “Open Letter” you added a sober postscript: “P.S. Myocarditis is Serious and Can Result in Death.”  (November 16, 2021) Why did you feel it necessary to add this cautionary note?

Monique Robles: As I was preparing for an appearance in a press conference on the “vaccine” risks in children, organized by the Truth for Health Foundation and presented by LifeSiteNews, I focused on the known increased risk of myocarditis, primarily prominent in young males. I felt that this risk was not being given its due respect.

I began to wonder if there would be a greater caution to vaccinate children with this product if there was a known increased risk of encephalitis or hepatitis. Myocarditis is not benign. My concern is that we will be prematurely ending the life of some children or limiting the lifespan of others due to this condition.

CWR: As a pediatrician, what do you consider the most disturbing aspect of the push for mass vaccination of children?

Monique Robles: The most disturbing aspect of this entire affair is the emergent use authorization (EUA) granted by the FDA when there is no emergency in children. It behooves us to protect children as pediatricians, and this is not occurring when the risks, known and unknown, outweigh any benefits. We have disregarded the fundamental principle of First Do No Harm.

CWR: Your “Open Letter” appeals to parents’ instinct to protect their children’s health, and the practical reasons for refusing the Pfizer vaccine.  In an earlier post you addressed moral objections to the currently available COVID vaccines.  You made an intriguing reference to Scripture:  “With the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day.”   How is this verse from 2 Peter applicable to the moral aspect of these vaccines?

Monique Robles: It was the research that you and others did (here and here) into the vaccine history and use of abortion-tainted fetal cell lines that inspired me. As I was reading the liturgy of the hours one morning, this verse from 2 Peter struck me. The rationale of passive remote material cooperation with the evil of abortion to allow acceptance of the tainted SARS CoV-2 vaccines, if a proportional reason exists, did not resonate with me. After all, remote is relative to the situation unless one looks with the eyes and wisdom of God.

Leave a Reply