The utilitarian mantra of "the greatest good for the greatest number" sounds noble, but its application in public health, as Robert W. Malone argues, often breeds injustice by trampling individual rights, particularly informed consent. From COVID vaccine mandates, to the absurd proposal of engineering ticks to spread meat allergies, the pursuit of collective benefit can lead to ethical atrocities, undermining the very moral foundation it claims to uphold. This flawed philosophy, embraced by institutions like the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), risks turning bioethics into a tyranny that justifies coercion in the name of public health.

The Utilitarian Trap

Utilitarianism, at its core, values outcomes over principles, measuring morality by aggregate happiness or societal benefit. Malone's essay exposes its dark side: when the "greater good" becomes a blank cheque, it excuses violations of personal autonomy. The COVID-19 crisis saw governments and health bodies, including the AAP, mandate experimental mRNA vaccines, emergency use authorised, not fully tested, without ensuring fully informed consent. Propaganda, coercion, and enticement were deployed to "overcome vaccine hesitancy," ignoring risks like cardiac damage or death. Malone likens this to Nazi physicians' hypothermia experiments at Dachau, where a supposed "medical emergency" justified forcing prisoners into deadly trials. The parallel is stark: utilitarianism's ends-justify-the-means logic can slide into crimes against humanity.

This connects to our broader critiques of societal decay, discussed at this blog. Just as urban governance fails when ideology trumps safety (e.g., Boston's drug markets), or media mislabels parental protests as "far-Right" (e.g., Epping), utilitarianism in bioethics sacrifices individual rights for a nebulous collective good, eroding trust in institutions.

Reductio ad Absurdum: The Tick Case

Malone employs a Socratic reductio ad absurdum to expose utilitarianism's flaws, spotlighting a 2025 Bioethics article by Parker Crutchfield and Blake Hereth. They argue it's "morally obligatory" to genetically engineer ticks to spread alpha-gal syndrome (AGS), a red meat allergy, to deter meat consumption for environmental and ethical reasons. Their logic: if meat-eating is bad, and AGS stops it, then spreading AGS is good for the greatest number. This is utilitarianism unmasked, advocating harm (an infectious disease) to enforce a moral stance without consent. Malone notes this mirrors covert "moral bioenhancement," as Crutchfield previously argued in 2019, where manipulating behaviour without knowledge is deemed ethical for public health.

Releasing ticks to alter diets is a step beyond mandating vaccines that shed to non-consenting others, as Malone notes with polio and mRNA vaccines. Both violate the sacred principle of bodily autonomy, codified post-Nuremberg to prevent medical tyranny.

The AAP's Ethical Betrayal

The AAP's policies exemplify utilitarianism's injustice. In July 2025, the AAP pushed to eliminate all non-medical vaccine exemptions, arguing that religious or personal beliefs undermine public health. They sued HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for removing COVID vaccines from paediatric schedules, claiming it defies "scientific evidence," despite Malone's point that these vaccines were experimental, with risks downplayed. The AAP's support for gender-affirming care, reaffirmed in 2023, further chooses ideological outcomes over evidence, as bans in 20+ states reflect concerns about irreversible treatments on minors.

By endorsing mandates without informed consent, the AAP sacrifices individual rights for a supposed collective good, much like cities enabling crime through lax policies (e.g., San Francisco's decay) or universities pushing divisive narratives. X posts, like one from @DocMalone on August 5, 2025, call this "bioethical tyranny," arguing it normalises coercion under the guise of protecting society. The injustice lies in assuming the majority's benefit trumps personal sovereignty, ignoring the harm to those coerced.

The Injustice of Sacrificing Consent

Informed consent is non-negotiable, as Malone stresses, rooted in post-Nuremberg ethics to protect against medical abuse. Utilitarianism erodes this by justifying coercion when a "crisis" is declared, whether Nazis' hypothermia experiments or COVID mandates. The AAP's stance assumes children and parents can't be trusted to make health choices, echoing the surveillance state's paternalism. This breeds distrust, as seen in Epping's protests, where parents feel ignored by elites choosing ideology over safety.

The solution? Reject utilitarian mandates and uphold autonomy. Public health must persuade, not coerce, providing transparent risk-benefit data. The AAP should face scrutiny for pushing policies that dismiss dissent as anti-science, just as media should stop mislabelling concerned citizens as extremists. If we don't, the rot spreads, bioethics becomes a tool of control, and society's decay, from cities to institutions, accelerates.

https://www.malone.news/p/woke-bioethics-tyranny