Ethical Modernity

Tag: ethics

Executive Order 14287: “Protecting American Communities From Criminal Aliens”

Executive Order 14287: “Protecting American Communities From Criminal Aliens,” made my mind blank.

I blanked as I began to read the purpose of the Executive Order. The violent wording of the document, the terminology used to describe people, and the ‘purpose’ of such violence. I finally began to acknowledge the deep mistake Americans made in this election. How a candidate of hope lost to a man of hate.

The executive order is plastered with white supremacy and its political ideologies. Making it an excellent example of the violence and suffering that this administration is willing to inflict.

I am deeply concerned about the consequences of the elected Trump administration and its role in our global community. We are globally experiencing a modern-day fascist regime in its second term, two nuclear superpowers with fascist rule, and European Union member states leaning right-wing. This should concern anyone who values liberties. History has shown us previously how a fascist regime, or the regime of white supremacy, ultimately destroys the achievements of nations, as its energy source is hate. My mind jumps to the consequences of our actions and our role in history. How did such hate succeed in power?

This executive order is an attack on the human race. It is a violation of human rights from its very wording to its actions. The protection of human rights and liberty is what the United States has stood by internationally and domestically, and now they have chosen fascism as its route of governing. Everything that transpires in the United States is a repeat of history. A forced expulsion of people to ‘cleanse’ a state. This is fascism.

Section 1 . Purpose and Policy. Federal supremacy with respect to immigration, national security, and foreign policy is axiomatic. The Constitution provides the Federal Government with plenary authority regarding immigration to protect the sovereignty of our Nation and to conduct relations with other nations, who must be able to deal with one national Government on such matters. This power is sometimes contained in specific constitutional provisions: Article II of the Constitution vests the power to protect national security and conduct foreign policy in the President of the United States, and Article IV, Section 4, requires the Federal Government to “protect each of [the States] against Invasion.” This Federal power over immigration is also an inherent element of national sovereignty.
Federal Register :: Protecting American Communities From Criminal Aliens

               Federal supremacy. The beginning of this statement already sends chills down my spine. A democracy, none other than the United States, where liberty is their people’s God-given right and the right their fathers died for. The history of the United States is that of a government that has shown, by example, how the union of states can communicate through diplomacy and trade to safeguard their liberties and freedoms. The center of technological and scientific advancements and a global influence for democracy has removed itself from its roots and chosen fascist rule.

The wording of this document matters, and the beginning of the purpose is horrifying. Federal supremacy cannot and should never occur in democratic states. None other than the U.S.; The federal government should never be supreme. The federal government should know its place and role in the Union. This is why we elect and choose senators and representatives to give us many voices in the federal government. Not one supreme ruler. This is how democracy works, and it has been functioning in this manner, although not perfectly; they have maintained a certain standard. These are the standards that most democratic states aspire to. A supreme federal government contradicts the idea of the United States and, thus, its constitution.

               ‘We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.’
U.S. Constitution | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

I argue that this appalling executive order goes against the Constitution of the United States. The preamble of the Constitution of the United States says that the people of the United States form a more perfect Union, progressing forward in history, by establishing Justice and ensuring domestic Tranquility. None of which this executive order does. Justice for the people can not be established when there is an attack on the people. The people this executive order attacks are those you and I meet at the grocery stores or in public transit. We are all of the people, since fascism has no other goal but to destroy the sanctity of liberty, and if one’s liberty is persecuted, the rest of us will be next.

Tranquility is the government’s responsibility to maintain peace, stability, and order within the country. This executive order does none of this. Stability and peace are being disrupted, there is a penalty faced by states that do not comply, and there are violent attacks on civilians in the country. This is not tranquility this is terror.

“The Constitution provides the Federal Government with plenary authority regarding immigration to protect the sovereignty of our Nation and to conduct relations with other nations, who must be able to deal with one national Government on such matters.”
Federal Register :: Protecting American Communities From Criminal Aliens

The plenary authority. Once again, the wording suggests supremacy over other branches of government, which disturbs the institution of democracy.

The Constitution, in Article II, does provide the president with authority over foreign policy and national security, but how the government has chosen to deal with its domestic issues is a crime against humanity. This needs to be taken seriously. The administration is committing crimes against humanity.

Article IV, Section 4, requires the Federal Government to “protect each of [the States] against Invasion.”
U.S. Constitution | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

Invasion by immigration. The Trump administration has decided to attack ethnic minorities by expelling them from the state. An expulsion of a population is considered a crime against humanity. Methods chosen to solve immigration are the same as those of Nazi Germany—a segregation of individuals from their homes, families, and communities.

What must be understood in the conversation of immigration is that there will always be an ethnic minority in any given state, and the higher the quality of life this state provides, the greater the influx of those who are searching for better lives. If this is seen as a positive for a community, then the melting pot metaphor can be achieved. But if they are seen as an enemy to the state, then these minorities will be unsafe and suffer the consequences of our bigotry. By accepting these communities and providing inclusivity in our lives, we allow others to truly integrate into our communities and become the melting pot we aspire to. Hate breeds hate, and the administration legally bound hate into their governance.

The ethical solution to immigration lies in the global effort to combat the disproportional distribution of global resources that the southern hemisphere faces. Organizations such as USAID have created these opportunities for countries; in return, these countries become more democratic. The attack on USAID will now cause more people to migrate from the southern hemisphere to the northern hemisphere. What awaits them could be disastrous if the American people do not begin to protect minorities. This is a horrifying repeat of history.

Yet some State and local officials nevertheless continue to use their authority to violate, obstruct, and defy the enforcement of Federal immigration laws. This is a lawless insurrection against the supremacy of Federal law and the Federal Government’s obligation to defend the territorial sovereignty of the United States. Beyond the intolerable national security risks, such nullification efforts often violate Federal criminal laws, including those prohibiting obstruction of justice (18 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), unlawfully harboring or hiring illegal aliens (8 U.S.C. 1324), conspiracy against the United States (18 U.S.C. 371), and conspiracy to impede Federal law enforcement (18 U.S.C. 372). Assisting aliens in violating Federal immigration law could also violate the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (18 U.S.C. 1961 et seq.). Some measures to assist illegal aliens also necessarily violate Federal laws prohibiting discrimination against Americans in favor of illegal aliens and protecting Americans’ civil rights.

It is imperative that the Federal Government restore the enforcement of United States law.
Federal Register :: Protecting American Communities From Criminal Aliens

The icing on the cake: a threat against the Union itself. State officials will be punished if they do not comply with these outrageous executive orders. The crimes that will be used to persecute state officials are severe, making the defiance of these executive orders dangerous. Forcing states to comply with executive orders in a way that threatens the Union. The federal government can not enforce such restrictions and implement the justice system in a way that can only be described as domestic terrorism.

Executive Order #14287 has changed the United States’ global image from a nation of order to a nation of accepted domestic terrorism.

May God bless America.

June 6, 2025
Withdrawing the United States From the World Health Organization. Executive Order #14155

I return to Donald Trump’s Executive Orders as I continue to share moral reasoning in political discourse. The one that causes me great worry is Executive Order #14155, the withdrawal of the United States from the World Health Organization [Federal Register :: Withdrawing the United States From the World Health Organization]. This is one of many EOs that I find disturbing—withdrawing from a supranational organization such as the WHO leaves me speechless. I do not know where to begin with Donald Trump’s terror of the American people. The devastating effects that this withdrawal can cause cannot be ignored. This organization is essential for the health and well-being of billions of people on the planet, and the U.S intergovernmental cooperation with the WHO is vital for the health and safety of all people.

The American people deserve to know what their elected officials are doing, and luckily, their president’s decisions can be accessed. (Like a democracy, I see; they truly are.)

Chapter I. Article I. Objective. The objective of the World Health Organization (hereinafter called the Organization) shall be the attainment by all peoples of the highest possible level of health.

CONSTITUTION OF THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION

Before analyzing the executive order, I’d like to bring attention to the necessity of the World Health Organization. In my opinion, one of the most necessary Supranational organizations created in our modern history. One aimed at ensuring global stability through our fundamental need for healthcare. The creation of an international health body and its legitimacy through its constitution and its ratification by countries globally has created an institution that aims to protect the fundamental right to health. [CONSTITUTION OF THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION] This global health institution is the result of those individuals who have understood that health is an objective for peace. Since everyone aims for a happy and healthy life, this alone is crucial in understanding the necessity for a global health community. Protecting this institution is critical for international stability if morality is viewed as a duty and an individual’s health is recognized.

The WHO has been central to outstanding historic achievements that have immensely helped humanity. The eradication of smallpox, combating polio, and developing the Ebola vaccine are just a few examples. These achievements, often underappreciated, have been the result of the WHO’s relentless efforts. Health is a fundamental need for a person to thrive in society, and without health, they cannot actively participate in life. Today, the WHO is vital in addressing significant health challenges that every individual state faces within its borders. They actively participate in addressing diseases that spread among individuals (HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis) and the diseases that face most individuals in their lifetime (heart disease and cancer). The influence and reach of the WHO should not be underestimated, as this organization is key to the standards found in global healthcare. Global healthcare institutions need the WHO to anchor their state’s healthcare standards and protocols. This organization is used as a guide by professionals and institutions, providing them with the latest information and best practices in the field of medical science. Without the WHO, we would all exist in a world where we would experience different healthcare services in every state.

Explaining this, I return to EO 14155. A chilling example of the fascism in play by the Trump Administration.

Section 1 . Purpose. The United States noticed its withdrawal from the World Health Organization (WHO) in 2020 due to the organization’s mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic that arose out of Wuhan, China, and other global health crises, its failure to adopt urgently needed reforms, and its inability to demonstrate independence from the inappropriate political influence of WHO member states. In addition, the WHO continues to demand unfairly onerous payments from the United States, far out of proportion with other countries’ assessed payments. China, with a population of 1.4 billion, has 300 percent of the population of the United States, yet contributes nearly 90 percent less to the WHO

Section 1 begins with the purpose of the Executive Order. A withdrawal over the need to dictate to a separate organization with its constitution how fast reforms should be in place. One American administration has decided that an organization established in 1948, after years of experience in healthcare, needs to change due to how the Trump administration views its COVID-19 response as a failure of the WHO, instead of a failure of its management. This administration continues to bring instability to the global community, which fuels my theory of them being a fascist state.

In addition, the WHO continues to demand unfairly onerous payments from the United States, which is far out of proportion with other countries’ assessed payments. China, with a population of 1.4 billion, has 300 percent of the population of the United States, yet contributes nearly 90 percent less to the WHO.

Other reasoning given in the EO is that they want their economic rival to “pay more,” which is counterintuitive to the trajectory that Trump claims to be on. If his goal is to ‘make America great again, ’ forcing their economic rivals to contribute more to this organization will decrease their influence, reducing the Pan American Health Organization’s intergovernmental relations with the WHO. The Pan American Health Organization predates the WHO, making it the oldest public health institution. When WHO was established, PAHO’s existing health infrastructure and agreements were integrated into WHO’s framework, so PAHO references are found in WHO’s founding documents. Making the interconnection between organizations more significant than citizens acknowledge. Since PAHO is an autonomous regional office of the WHO, the actions taken against the WHO will undermine its public institution’s influence in the WHO and PAHO’s legitimate autonomy. (Unless that is the administration’s goal).

Section 2 (c) The Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs shall establish directorates and coordinating mechanisms within the National Security Council apparatus as he deems necessary and appropriate to safeguard public health and fortify biosecurity.

As I mentioned when reviewing EO 14289, wording matters in legal documentation. The words ‘as he deems necessary and appropriate to safeguard public health and fortify biosecurity’ deeply worry me. This wording suggests giving one individual power over all dealings with public health, undermining the very principles of a democracy.

Section (d) The Secretary of State and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall take appropriate measures, with all practicable speed, to:

(i) pause the future transfer of any United States Government funds, support, or resources to the WHO;

(ii) recall and reassign United States Government personnel or contractors working in any capacity with the WHO; and

(iii) identify credible and transparent United States and international partners to assume necessary activities previously undertaken by the WHO.

Section 2 (d) particularly worries me – as this is the game plan.

(i) Pausing future transfers of any funds, support, or resources will cause tremendous fallout for the global health community. These funds pay for the work that the WHO is doing, and cutting funding will lead to the deterioration of programs necessary for the survival of many. The people who will be affected first are the poor and vulnerable of the global community.

(ii) Recalling and reassigning government personnel/contractors working in any capacity will cause harm to the American working class. With no backup plan for relocating human resources and no promise of support from the government. Which reminds me of Donald Trump’s previous term in Office, and how during the COVID-19 pandemic his administration also left millions of Americans waiting for government support during the first months of the pandemic. Showing us how his tactics have not changed, and no lesson was learned from the previous term.

(iii) To identify previous partners in past activities is an attack on these previous partners. Anyone who had, in the opinion of a dictator, overstepped the administration will be identified. The next step would be to deal with them, but as fascists so often do, they will deal with the consequences without us knowing.

Section 2 (e) The Director of the White House Office of Pandemic Preparedness and Response Policy shall review, rescind, and replace the 2024 U.S. Global Health Security Strategy as soon as practicable.

Section 2 (e) suggests an attack on the previous administration and every individual who voted for the prior administration. This is a miserable result of this executive order, as this strategy would have positively affected millions of Americans and has been removed from public access. Release of 2024 U.S. Global Health Security Strategy – United States Department of State

For me, an attack on the World Health Organization feels like a personal attack. As a physician and someone deeply interested in healthcare administration, I perceive this as an assault on all public health.

They have undermined our fundamental right to healthcare.

June 3, 2025
The Bioethical Principle of Justice

As someone who advocates for patient autonomy, I want to distinguish the importance of the principle of justice. In my modern perspective, when discussing justice with autonomous individuals, I often find that the ethical principle of justice can differ from the established justice system. An autonomous individual can question the judicial system and begin asking how justice is served. The autonomy of oneself and how one views oneself can determine how one views justice. This is why we have individuals who don’t recognize the judicial system as a fair branch of government and see their biases and the overall injustice. When we find the general population distrusting the judicial system, we begin to see an erosion of the system. We cannot let this happen since the justice system was in place for us – the people. As a society, we determine how justice can be served in our states and individual lives. We decide what is wrong and right, but without moral reasoning, we have less of a chance of having a fair society, where justice is for all. Advocating for justice without advocating for autonomy will keep the divide between the system and the people. Only a self-determined, autonomous individual can truly understand their need for the moral principle of justice. In their independence, they see justice as a core value of their human rights. These two principles are deeply intertwined.

Autonomy determines whether internal and subjective moral justice is held or denied. This is why I advocate for the principle of autonomy in patient management. When applied appropriately, autonomy helps solve most ethical dilemmas and injustices. When the physician cooperates with a patient as an autonomous individual, we can resolve dilemmas quickly by respecting their dignity and achieve a positive outcome that will align with all principles, including justice.

Autonomy with trust enables us to achieve a more balanced outcome when applying bioethical principles. Patients who trust their physicians are more likely to follow treatment and recommendations, resulting in a more effective treatment plan and quicker results. Trusting the physician is the cornerstone of effective treatment. When we uphold the principles of justice, we regain trust in the healthcare system. This seems to be the fastest way to rebuild trust—through patient autonomy and active participation in care.

To ensure justice for all within the healthcare system, I first define two distinct forms: the principle of justice for the individual and distributive justice.

The principle of justice in bioethics emphasizes fair, equitable, and appropriate treatment of individuals. It ensures that healthcare resources are distributed fairly and that decisions are made without bias or favoritism. Justice also requires that conflicts of interest be avoided and that patient care decisions prioritize fairness over personal or institutional gain. On an individual level, this can be seen as providing access to treatment without bias. Justice can be genuinely achieved as the result of the cooperation of all bioethical principles. It is within the three prior principles that the principle of bioethical justice is served.

When physicians engage with ethical principles in daily practice, the healthcare professional can achieve an individualized approach to their patients, which allows for reaching the bioethical principle of justice. When the practice is aimed at being non-maleficent and beneficial, and recognizes the patient’s dignity and autonomy, the principle of justice has most likely been addressed thoroughly. However, justice isn’t a concept that physicians are usually acquainted with daily. For one to think of justice as a concern, other principles, usually, have been violated.

Distributive justice, on the other hand, is broader. It is a subset of justice that focuses on the equitable allocation of healthcare resources. It considers various principles for distribution, such as equality, need, effort, contribution, merit, and free-market exchanges. These principles are often combined to address challenges like allocating scarce resources (e.g., organ transplants or medications) and managing time for outpatient visits. Physicians are encouraged to uphold fairness despite external pressures and constraints when dealing with limited resources, but to do this properly, one must acknowledge individual justice, as one without the other does not exist. Distributive justice is the ethical consideration of the whole healthcare system. We achieve a fair society through distributive justice, where all needs are considered.

Equality and equity are other terms used when discussing the ethical distribution of resources. Defining these concepts can help achieve the fair distribution of resources. Equity refers to fairness and justice in providing opportunities, resources, and treatment to individuals and groups, considering their unique needs, circumstances, and barriers. Unlike equality, which offers everyone the same resources or opportunities, equity acknowledges that different individuals may require varying levels of support to achieve the same outcomes or access the same benefits. Understanding this enables employees to make decisions on an individual level without the need for micromanagement from the administration. The more enlightened an individual is of their rights and responsibilities and is aware of their moral reasoning, the less there is a need to instruct, guide, or control their work process. This allows for autonomous individuals to contribute to distributive justice.

Justice is crucial in formulating healthcare policies that address inequities within the healthcare system. This ensures an environment where physicians can practice all the fundamental principles of ethics. The goals include a fair distribution of resources and healthcare providers, ensuring equitable access to diagnostic and treatment availability, and a just allocation of finances within the healthcare system. Fairly distributing access to healthcare for all citizens is their constitutional and human right.

When addressing complex moral situations, achieving justice for all can be challenging. Reaching a fair distribution of resources can seem more straightforward than attaining fair treatment of everyone individually. In my view, when we provide care with the individual’s justice in mind, we start to consider those who do not openly express their need for it. The caregiver becomes aware of the silent mistreatments that individuals can experience and/or are afraid to share, and the need for justice becomes a given. The protection of the vulnerable is the ultimate goal of the principle of Justice. This approach to patient management begins to provide individual justice to those who seek it and distributive justice to those who need it.

Confidentiality, transparency, and informed consent are other principles that deserve attention and relate to the previously mentioned bioethical principles.

Confidentiality is the backbone of the patient-physician relationship; based on this principle, we establish the foundation for trust. Physicians are obligated by the judicial system to uphold this principle, making it fundamental in dealing with ethical dilemmas. If this concept is breached, it becomes a matter of right or wrong. Confidentiality requires physicians to protect patient information and share it only in particular situations regulated by law, making this principle a cornerstone for any dispute in healthcare.

Transparency is an essential principle for respecting the principle of autonomy. Through transparency, an autonomous individual can give informed consent to healthcare providers to manage their health. Transparency is shown when applying informed consent by providing information about the diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis. When providing healthcare information, transparency that respects the dignity of the individual is essential for the principle of justice.

Informed consent is to be given by an autonomous individual who is competent, fully informed of the required information about their health status, and voluntarily consents to procedures or management. This concept protects patients from malicious intent or non-beneficial management by allowing them to seek individual justice if their dignity is disrespected.

These principles and their legal foundations are how we obtain the ethical justice our citizens deserve.

Ethical principles are an indispensable component of healthcare, as they enable the effective and equitable functioning of healthcare services and help to regain the population’s respect. By adhering to these principles, physicians and others can balance the complex demands of medical, legal, and social considerations, ultimately serving the best interests of individuals and society. Ensuring ethical practice enhances the credibility and legitimacy of the healthcare system, upholding the fundamental values of human dignity and freedoms.

June 1, 2025
Inclusivity and Diversity

Using moral reasoning to grow communities and foster relationships begins with defining the terms often mentioned in social-political discourse or disability studies: inclusivity and diversity.

I understand these terms better using the example of people integrating into established communities. In this example, an individual leaves their original community and, for any given reason, decides to leave their community or is interested in expanding their interests in other social settings.

These individuals enter a community, and can either be welcomed or not by the group, which determines the success rate of the integration process. The integration process is when the individual adapts to the social environment established by the community members. The group of people decides whether the integration is successful.

In an inclusive community, the group welcomes and supports the integration process as the individual becomes accustomed to social norms and traditions established by the members. Individuals interested in adapting to a new social group will seamlessly integrate into the inclusive community.

An inclusive community welcomes new members who differ from the original social standards and norms, which brings diversity to the group. When integration is welcoming and the community is interested in keeping members, it will begin to adapt to the new members. This adaptation influences the group’s established standards, thus evolving as a community. These changes are diversity.

May 31, 2025
Faith and Moral Reasoning

As our society advances, we begin to understand how ethical principles determine the quality of services. The more advanced we have become, the greater the need for ethical principles to be at the forefront of everyday interactions with professionals and community members.

In my opinion, civilization’s new path is to partake in moral growth. As one begins to search within oneself for moral reasoning, they will find it necessary to start outwards, expressing their morality. It is a given that morality needs an external pursuit to gain a positive outcome from practicing moral reasoning. These external pursuits are the interactions an individual has in their everyday lives.

If one is seeking morality, I think there are ways to achieve this. These are my ideas:

A conscious decision to choose moral reasoning or faith.

The first is the conscious path that a person takes; for instance, a professional may choose to practice using moral reasoning. This path, I see, is a path that responsible individuals decide to take. This is why, I believe, those who consciously choose to live a life of moral reasoning suggest their high virtue and honor. However, when one engages in morality only from a logical perspective, this can begin to wear out individuals with such issues as burnout and depression, as it takes cognitive energy to engage with moral reasoning based on logic. When this happens, the individual’s reasoning becomes filled with biases and prejudices that are difficult to manage, thus disrupting their moral reasoning. So I acknowledge the people in modern society who engage in morals for the betterment of themselves and society, as this is not an easy task. I believe these people play a massive role in humanity’s development and evolution.

The second path is through faith. This path requires less energy, and many attest to the energy it gives in return. Faith is a concept so difficult to define yet so common in society that when discussed, the contradiction must be kept in mind, as this contradiction anchors faith to its role in morality. Those who live by faith choose moral reasoning, and moral reasoning nurtures the faith in one’s soul. Like a cycle, one contributes to the other and vice versa. Making this a cycle of morality and something one can find within oneself. No logical reasoning is necessary for faith since it escapes the reality of our world; this is where the energy is saved. One does not need to apply extra effort to have faith. It is a surrender of your soul to the magnificence of the outer world. Surrender can be something like acknowledging the universe’s weight and how insignificant a man can be in something much larger than themselves. It brings one to wish to be moral in their lives for the sake of their faith. One nurtures their faith with morality, and faith is stronger with morality expressed.

No matter the path, the outcome will be the same: a better relationship with yourself, family, communities, and society. Creating a kinder world with compassionate leadership.

May 26, 2025
Non-maleficence in modern healthcare
Primum non nocere. Do No Harm.

The principle of nonmaleficence is widely considered the primary principle in bioethics. Without this fundamental principle, the other principles cannot hold. I go so far as to suggest that this principle can be regarded as a human quality – humanity’s innate desire to keep one another safe. This principle is the driving factor for many professionals to choose healthcare. Providing care that positively impacts patients’ lives is precisely what most healthcare workers aspire to in their careers. Unfortunately, harm can occur in healthcare, even when procedures are performed correctly; however, damage and suffering are minimized by upholding the principle of non-maleficence. To ‘do no harm’ means to provide care that incorporates all other principles. So, to achieve the best patient outcomes, physicians strive to balance each principle. If physicians follow this approach, they adhere to moral reasoning and achieve long-lasting results that satisfy the patient’s reasoning towards their health.

The non-maleficence principle is characterized by carefully balancing the benefits and burdens of treatments, avoiding inappropriately burdensome treatments while selecting the most beneficial course of action for the patient. Non-maleficence becomes particularly relevant in challenging end-of-life care decisions, such as withdrawing life-sustaining treatment, managing pain, and alleviating symptoms. Ethical dilemmas have arisen when discussing the contradictions between non-maleficence and autonomy or in public health discussions. Another interesting area of discussion is epistemic injustice.

When discussing end-of-life care, the discussion of assisted dying begins. Assisted dying is the action taken by a physician that assists the patient in death. This can be seen as an injection; this would need a voluntary and informed consent for it to happen, and is being discussed among patients with terminal long-term chronic illness, or this can be the medical professional’s action to turn off equipment that keeps the patient alive. Either way, ethical end-of-life care is needed to respect the individual when performing such actions. In the cases of assisted dying, bioethicists argue that allowing terminally ill patients to choose a dignified death minimizes harm. In contrast, others believe it contradicts the traditional medical duty to avoid causing damage. In my opinion, assisted dying and the outcomes of our discussions and evaluation of our misfortunes are where we can learn how to manage the mysteries of our collective psyche. This involves recognizing the dying as individuals and giving them the autonomy to decide.

As for epistemic injustice, this is a type of injustice that occurs when individuals are dismissed by healthcare providers even when the patient is willing to express their autonomy. In other words, when healthcare providers dismiss the patients’ experience and knowledge of their illness. This is relevant to chronically ill patients and the need to take their experiences seriously. The healthcare community should take these cases seriously, as the repercussions can undermine trust in the healthcare system. Since these patients seek healthcare services the most often, they can impact society’s trust in physicians by sharing their experiences with other community members. These patients have experience in healthcare that other members of society listen to, as they have more knowledge navigating the healthcare system. When they share their experiences with others, their complaints can ripple, affecting those they did not know they would. This can be viewed as a positive for patient advocacy groups and other community members fighting for more patient autonomy. However, on the other hand, this disruption can continue to erode the trust in the healthcare system, which ultimately causes more harm to the general population than to the individual level.

Trust is the cornerstone of a well-functioning healthcare system and a necessary component of effective public health policy. In societies that lack trust in healthcare systems, individuals tend to regard public health as less critical, prioritizing their autonomy over the equitable distribution of resources for public health among the general population. This is seen in cases where vaccines are mandated. The patient’s autonomy is chosen over the well-being of the collective, which causes further injustice in the healthcare system. This is argued to contradict the principle of non-maleficence, and to an extent, I would agree. The public’s health must be considered when dealing with tightly situated populations. Historically, vaccines have been mandated and have had an incredible effect on the longevity and health of youth populations. Vaccines have been a saving grace for the global child mortality rate, nearly eradicating diseases that primarily affect children, and should be seen as an achievement for humanity [Vaccines have saved 150 million children over the last 50 years – Our World in Data]. Instead, we have propaganda and disinformation that have attacked these achievements, causing a snowball effect of mistrust towards physicians who promote vaccines on an individual level. Now, on a personal level, with the cases of vaccines, it is logical to allow autonomy to be used as the primary principle for decision-making. Still, in the cases of vaccines, the evidence outweighs the people’s concerns, and I would argue that, where possible, educating the patients is the best possible solution for this problem. But for the most part, the education of the general population is the government’s responsibility. As for the physician dealing with this ethical dilemma, the principle of non-harm is being held when vaccines are mandated, as non-maleficence is to ‘do no harm,’ and allowing vaccine-preventable diseases to spread causes harm.

As someone who deeply believes democracy is truly understood and upheld by individuals who understand their autonomy, I pivot to explaining how autonomy is the guiding principle of bioethical discourse in a healthy society. Imbalances in bioethical discussion could be addressed with the principle of autonomy and their involvement in decision-making. However, there are healthcare situations that require physician to make decisions without the patient’s involvement, or otherwise the patient’s autonomy cannot be expressed. If the outcome of this care results in harm, the best course of action is to discuss the physician’s intentions when making decisions.

This is where the doctrine (or principle) of double effect can be used in bioethical discourse.

“The doctrine of double effect is often invoked to explain the permissibility of an action that caused serious harm, such as the death of a human being, resulting as a side effect when promoting some good end. According to the principle of double effect, sometimes it is permissible to cause harm as an unintended and merely foreseen side effect (or “double effect”) of bringing about a good result even though it would not be permissible to cause such a harm as a means to bringing about the same good end” Doctrine of Double Effect (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

The doctrine of double effect recognizes the decision-maker’s intention. This framework helps decide if beneficence was the leading principle in decision-making, even when the outcome was harmful. The doctrine of double effect emphasizes a distinction between causing moral harm as a side effect in pursuing a positive outcome and the cause of harm when pursuing an individual positive outcome. In other words, there is a difference when damage was done unintentionally in pursuing a positive outcome, and harm is the result of pursuing a positive outcome.

The doctrine helps define the intention of the individual who caused harm and whether the result was for the sake of beneficence.

Joseph Managan provided four conditions that need to be met to establish unintentional harm while pursuing a positive outcome.
1. that the action in itself, from its very object, be good or at least indifferent;
2. that the good effect and not the bad effect be intended;
3. that the good effect is not produced by means of the bad effect;
4. that there be a proportionately grave reason for permitting the bad effect;
These conditions help determine whether an individual’s actions can be seen as good and, therefore, whether the harm done can be morally justified.

The doctrine of the double effect is used in ethical discussions, Whether it is euthanasia and pain relief or abortion and hysterectomy, the doctrine allows for a humanistic approach to ethical cases. Focusing on the intention while reviewing ethical dilemmas allows the decision-maker to grow from their actions. This is part of an individual’s moral growth.

Even so, I argue that this doctrine can be used to solve the dilemma that professionals face: an individualized approach vs. standardization

Ethical dilemmas can happen when the standard approach to an individual does not lead to the intended positive outcome, leaving the patient and/or healthcare professional in an ethical dilemma. Since ethics heavily relies on the capability of moral reasoning, it is to be expected that there will be misjudgment and harm during an individual’s practice. Ethical reasoning is a complex skill involving years of practice and mistakes. To avoid discouraging professionals from applying moral reasoning to an individual approach, the Doctrine of the Double Effect can be used by the healthcare professional.

I’d like to argue that if the doctrine of double effect were integrated into a healthcare provider’s practice, they could mitigate the constant use of protocols. Although protocols are beneficial for the patient and their use has increased the quality of healthcare worldwide, there are discussions in the general population about the negative effects of protocols. When cases emerge and an ethical dilemma between beneficence and non-maleficence arises, it is easy to side with protocol, prioritizing caution over moral justice. Siding with the established system and not accounting for the patient’s welfare can not be viewed as a free pass from causing harm. On one side, with the safest route, ethical principles might not be the primary focus for healthcare workers, thus creating an imbalance in the system and disrupting the principle of justice. To find a middle ground in such ethical dilemmas, applying the doctrine helps determine the intention and, therefore, the moral reasoning behind an action.
May 23, 2025
Understanding Beneficence in Healthcare Ethics

When discussing the principle of beneficence, I see it as something primal: a mammalian desire to provide the best for those you care about. In healthcare, it is the patient; in families, it is the elderly or children; in communities, it is the ones who need support. Therefore, beneficence is inherent to human nature. Healthcare professionals use beneficence as the guiding principle in their professional decision-making. Having an innate desire to provide care that benefits the patient, including preventing harm, assisting individuals, and rescuing those in danger. This principle emphasizes promoting welfare and fostering positive outcomes. This includes the physician’s responsibility to advocate for and provide the best care for their patients. The ethical approach of beneficence involves choosing a course of action that provides the necessary and appropriate care to the patient and their family.

In my opinion, the more open an individual is to new information, the more they engage with beneficence as an ethical principle. When an individual has an open mindset, they are usually more willing to engage with an individual. This ultimately leads to better management in care. An open-minded and unbiased approach is where ethical principles, such as beneficence, is best achieved. When providing care, the outcome of the care is as important as the intention. Although intention matters more when reviewing outcomes of actions, intention is how beneficence becomes involved. We use beneficence primarily when other aspects of our cognition aren’t flooded with unconscious biases and prejudices.

If unconscious factors mislead the decision-maker into unethical decision-making it is best that the physician be reviewed with the intent of ‘what’s best for them’, as only under these conditions does ethics thrive. In situations where safety and trust are established between the physician and authority, they will be more willing to engage in ethical decision-making, thus providing an individual approach to patient management.

The best approach to using beneficence is when other principles are respected. If beneficence is the physician’s only moral compass, then ethical mistakes can happen.

In certain scenarios, beneficence can result in hypocrisy when it fails to respect the patient’s autonomy or uphold justice. Globally, concerns about penalties from management have led physicians to refrain from disclosing information to patients; frequently, the reason for this is that family members are involved. Therefore, some medical communities have agreed that keeping the patient uninformed and the family satisfied is better than respecting the individual’s dignity and autonomy. If the patient is unaware and cannot make decisions, they are left to their families, who may not always have sound ethical reasoning. So, when the physician claims beneficence but withholds information, this creates an environment of distrust and thus, is non-beneficial.

In the dialogue of beneficence vs non-maleficence, there is the potential of a necessary course of action that could lead to violating the non-maleficence principle. In cases where treatment plans could compromise quality of life, weighing the benefits and harms of each course of action could compromise the non-maleficence principle. This is where I pivot back to autonomy and its importance for a healthy dynamic between healthcare providers and patients. It is where trust returns to the discourse. If there is no established trust between the two actors, it will increase the chances of causing more harm than necessary. In cases where the patient is autonomous and understands what they want from their treatment, their active participation in their health allows for more maleficent but beneficent therapies to be chosen based on the individual’s choice. If the principle of autonomy can not be executed, then the responsibility solely lies on the physician; this is where other ethical doctrines, such as the doctrine of double effect, can be applied to guide the physician in decision making.

In cases where beneficence conflicts with justice, the solution lies in the challenging task of establishing trust. As soon as this trust is based on a larger population scale, trust in the healthcare system is regained, and what was previously considered an unjust allocation of resources begins to be viewed as a necessity for all who require healthcare. When the focus of ethical principles remains on the security of human dignity, justice becomes a positive outcome of all the hours invested in moral decision-making.

The physician can begin a conscious approach to beneficence when they ask questions such as those proposed by the textbook ‘Doing Right’: “What can be done for the patient?” This way, the physician actively and consciously applies beneficence in practice. In other words, the same question could be asked: What is the most effective course of care for this individual based on my available information and resources? The outcome of treatment plans varies due to resource differences between regions. This has led to distrust in healthcare providers in areas where facilities are less equipped. The expectations of what a provider can do are unrealistic compared to what the available resources can achieve. The issue lies with the unjust distribution of resources within the healthcare system. Until this is addressed, the focus must be on establishing just relationships with limited resources by applying ethical principles in patient-physician interactions.

Beneficence is the foundation of moral reasoning and ethical decision-making. This principle makes one search for moral reasoning within oneself: the need for a better quality of life. When beneficence is recognized as a human quality and nurtured, it becomes the outcome of the chosen lifestyle. A desire for a higher quality of life will ultimately lead to searching for a better approach to one’s life. This involves improving relationships and connections by providing a better-quality approach to these relationships. Using the principle of beneficence, the quality of relationships begins to improve, most importantly, the patient-physician relationship.

May 12, 2025
Ukraine and Russia: The Fascist Dynamics in Modern Conflict

When creating this blog, I decided to focus on two distinct ideas: politics and healthcare. Although my professional knowledge is in healthcare, I cannot help but find the similarities between patient management and discussions of politics and their role in human lives. Politics has become a staple in our lives, and its effect is noticeable.

At the beginning of this blog, I tried to keep it focused on North America, and the pressing issue is tariffs, but when researching the Executive Order, I noticed the trend of fascism in documents. This trend was found in the documents provided by the government of the United States. I had predicted that a fascist state in America would form, and then said, “I now consider it such”. This is the trajectory they have chosen, and I will continue referring to the administration as fascists until further notice.

With a new focus on fascism in government, geopolitical discourse has, with a regrettable heart, gotten my attention. The recent war developments in the Ukrainian-Russian war and my ability to focus on them have led me to an astonishing realization of how fascism has been at our front door for the past three decades. I am referring to Ukraine’s independence and sovereignty. During this period, the influence of the Russian Federation created enough tension within the population that war began. Through the test of time and the exhaustion that war brings, the lasting effects of such experiences will only be revealed eventually. However, what has transpired during this period has led to a profound understanding of the wounds that a nation carries from the beginning of the Ukrainian nation. Fascism has been and always been rooted in the relationship between the Ukrainian and Russian nations. They were never brothers, in my opinion, but propaganda tools influenced them during the USSR to establish widespread complacency among the two peoples. This was to create a facade of trust between opposing nations. This facade has created a sense of false hope in the Ukrainian people that the Russians could be trusted as brothers.

While hostility is common among neighboring states, the hostilities experienced in Ukraine by the Russian people continue to affect people’s lives. Their manipulation tactics, constant inconsistencies, and the lie they offer that there will be decent diplomacy among decent human beings continue to affect people’s lives. During Putin’s presidency, he has yet to show consistency in stories, reasoning, and purpose. Inconsistencies do not occur where truth resides, as truth requires a foundation of morality. Morality stems from a position of truth-telling.

Fascism is a political ideology that needs immorality to exist. Unfortunately, immorality can come from a multitude of sources. Whether we acknowledge our immorality or not, the fascist regime exists while immoral governance is accepted. This type of governance should not exist in the 21^st century. In my argument, the immorality of spirit causes anchored mindsets that contribute to the whole regime. Responsibility for the regime lies with the oppressor, but the survivor must not become a victim.

Fascism oppresses the people by manipulating their day-to-day lives. It is easiest to manipulate people when they do not notice. Those who do not see – uphold and those who see them for what they are become victims of their brutality.

The oppressor does so because of their hatred towards humanity. This hatred is usually undetectable at first and hard to notice, as it does not cause much offense. However, as the oppressor becomes emboldened, they increase their influence, and the minor inconveniences become bigger as they begin attacking liberty. One who tries to live a moral life would find it irrational to release anger demonstratively, so it either manifests into passive aggressiveness towards generalized people that supposedly are the problem of the misfortunes, or into denial. Denial is the worst case scenario; Denial causes the individual to begin doubting their minds and thus become susceptible to propaganda. Depending on what you find interesting, there is fascist propaganda for you. From housewives to C.E.O., we are all susceptible to their manipulation tactics.

Although fascism is the minority, and most are not fascists, our psychological barriers keep us from seeing it for what it is. Under these conditions, one becomes complacent about the fascist regime. In this regime, the population either denies the existence of fascists or their grievances consume them to the point that they stop noticing the degradation of a system.

As for fascism as a conscious choice, this is the minority. The fascists themselves.

There is no doubt that Russia is a fascist state. The evidence is stacked against them. I state this boldly and unapologetically because I personally have experienced this terror.

While the U.S. only hints at its trajectory, Russia embodies the modern-day fascist state. We are now again in the midst of a war with them. As of February 24, 2022, Russia had openly begun its Nazi-terror against the Ukrainian people. Making this the most critical war of the 21^st century. The outcome of this war will determine the outcomes of every individual on this planet. Geopolitical outcome and the ripple effect of Nazi’s winning a war would be devastating.

Taking the last three years of war into account and the multitude of evidence that we have acquired tells us exactly what governance Putin’s regime has planned for Russia. His inner mind is that of a psychopathic fascist, and there will be no ceasefire or truce of any kind until they are accordingly dealt with. This state should not exist on our planet since it disrupts every aspect of the economy and has made everyone’s lives increasingly complex. Given this reason alone, the West should have done more for the Ukrainian people during this war.

Since then, Russian propaganda has affected political systems in Europe, which are beginning to lean right-wing. This political shift has already started destabilizing the European Union leadership, with the possibility of the EU’s values shifting toward authoritarianism. The internal political struggles within the EU have caused many people to forget that a war is continuing on the continent of Europe—a devastating war, with crimes against humanity and the extermination of a people…

Since fascism is an ideology of a certain fixed mindset, a solution to it can be found. I propose that moral reasoning is the solution against an extremist ideology. Something as simple as having a good intention towards yourself and others can counteract the effects of propaganda. As said previously, they are a minority; they hold less weight than you and I combined. So, if most people apply moral reasoning to their political discourse, we can finally achieve a middle ground.

Moral reasoning is the backbone of our humanity. It uses a person’s moral compass. If an interaction’s intention is grounded in good intentions, then that can be considered moral reasoning. To counteract fascism, our humanity must be engaged. Everyday interactions hold the greatest significance in the battle against a prevailing ideology.

Odesa, Ukraine

May 8, 2025
Respecting Autonomy: A Path to Better Healthcare Outcomes

An individual’s right to make decisions about their life, including their health [Article 27. Конституція України | від 28.06.1996 № 254к/96-ВР]. This right is granted to free and dignified individuals who recognize that they have the privilege of freedom and the responsibility for their health. It is these individuals who continue to serve the community despite their disabilities, and it is they who advance the progress of free thought. They deserve the respect that an autonomous and free individual has. Offering the right to make decisions on their behalf in situations where they cannot act is a form of respect and a demonstration of human kindness. I emphasize how autonomy is the principle that may be the solution to most of our ethical dilemmas. Dilemmas can be solved by including the individual, provided that they view themselves autonomously. It will then be easier to determine their opinion on treatment. Patients are the individuals who make up our communities, and they deserve to be treated with dignity and understood as autonomous beings capable of making informed decisions, or at least be guided into making a decision that will benefit them the most. In line with the other principles, autonomy becomes the center of the individual’s management, and ethical justice is then upheld. Physicians can guide their patients with non-maleficence in mind and beneficence in management, but ultimately, ethically, the individual’s autonomy decides the course of action.

One of the first ethical dilemmas that arises from autonomy concerns situations where patients disagree with management. Their opinion on protocol might be biased and may stem from a misunderstanding of the function of protocols. However, in some cases, the use of protocols can be viewed as a form of oppression. If protocols are unfounded or unjustifiable, they become a reason for mistrust in the general population. During the COVID-19 pandemic, I observed a trend where a lack of protocol led to stress on the healthcare system, resulting in worse outcomes and higher mortality rates [Impact of COVID-19 on Canada’s Health Care Systems | CIHI.” Www.cihi.ca, www.cihi.ca/en/covid-19-resources/impact-of-covid-19-on-canadas-health-care-systems]. The more uninformed the system was, the harder it was to control the infection. However, as we progressed past the initial phase, the general population became concerned with the management of the healthcare system and the implementation of protocols as measures to combat the pandemic. As it stands today, I agree with most protocols put in place during lockdown, but I do understand the frustration that the population experienced. When it came to vaccines, these protocols were enforced and widely disapproved of [Dhivagaran, Thanansayan, Umaima Abbas, Fahad Butt, Luckshann Arunasalam, and Oswin Chang. 2021. “Critical Appraisal of Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of COVID-19: Protocol for a Systematic Review.” Systematic Reviews 10 (1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01871-7]. The individual’s autonomy was not as a priority as I will argue for in other ethical dilemmas. In this case, the rights of autonomous individuals took a backseat to the pursuit of fair distribution of resources during crisis management. However, on an individual level, our patient-physician relationship must uphold all principles of bioethics. When the general population mistrusts us, we face an uninformed backlash to policies that were reactive to a crisis.

For us to have a functioning healthcare system that is respected and cherished, we must be the necessary change. Working in healthcare can feel like a conveyor of people, coming and going, and often, what seems to be the standard of treatment might not be what the patient would choose. The patient ends up dissatisfied, bitter, and annoyed, and begins to generalize all physicians. If the physician cannot grasp their autonomy and dignity, respecting others’ dignity and independence becomes a challenge. This is why ethical management is crucial for implementing and upholding ethical standards. It will otherwise take some time for each professional to come to terms with the ethics as integral to their treatment. [Page, Katie. 2012. “The Four Principles: Can They Be Measured and Do They Predict Ethical Decision Making?” BMC Medical Ethics 13 (1). https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6939-13-10]

Determining the values and wishes of our patients helps guide ethical decision-making and creates trusting environments for our patients. This principle is innate to those who view themselves as worthy of their individuality and life. Those who uphold democracy know that autonomy is key to freedom.

Today, many find themselves fighting for these principles, both metaphorically and literally. We deserve to be seen as autonomous individuals and experience the freedom of self-determination.

May 5, 2025
Addressing Fascism in Modern America
In a world where politics has become the number one issue in most households, it is difficult to ignore the effect that unethical management has created globally. Families have separated over political ideologies and suffered immensely over those in power; it is time to become aware of moral reasoning. With this comes my responsibility to contribute to the discussion, which has led to the creation of this blog and its accompanying themes. I will apply my moral reasoning to political discourse.

Politics is a pressing issue in our modern world. It has become common for households to engage in conversations surrounding politics. These conversations have brought incredible pain in families, causing many to lose touch with members of their own family over disagreements in political views. Understanding politics and its effect on our lives is vital for a thriving democracy and institutions that uphold ethical standards. This is why politics and ethical discussions go side-by-side.

In our global economy, we face the existential threat of being affected by a minority — the fascists. They have recently become emboldened, giving hints of their plans and chosen trajectory. Yet, they are still the minority—a minority now in power of the strongest economy on the planet.

I want to begin by reflecting on what each executive order means to me as an independent individual in a democratic nation. As I anticipated in my analysis of these documents, executive orders issued by President Trump will reflect ‘Project 2025’, which the extremists in America have proposed.

I used the following sources when researching: Federal Register: Executive Orders, Federal Register : Addressing Certain Tariffs on Imported Articles, and Proclamation 10908—Adjusting Imports of Automobiles and Automobile Parts Into the United States | The American Presidency Project

Executive Order 14289: Addressing Certain Tariffs on Imported Articles

When I begin reading legal documents, such as an executive order, it is good to remember what you are looking for, and in the case of legal documents, the wording matters. So, as I read the purpose of EO 14289, I can not help but scratch my head. The purpose of these tariffs, which have affected many lives, is that they pose a threat to national security, allegedly, an unusual and extraordinary threat. This wording is a red flag for an unethical purpose, reflecting malicious intent. Wording that suggests something unrealistic has threatened national security.

‘The United States has imposed tariffs under various statutory authorities and through a number of Executive Orders and proclamations to protect national security and address unusual and extraordinary threats to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States.’ [Section 1, EO 14289]

It is undoubtedly only an unusual or extraordinary threat that would allow such reasoning behind the implementation of this executive order. I found the wording for this reason offensive to my individuality and disrespectful to my dignity.

Further down, I began to search for these unusual and extraordinary threats. These threats had been provided in Proclamation 10908 and are as follows:
1. Supply chain vulnerabilities [section 5]
2. Foreign industrial policies [section 6]
3. Material and labor shortages [section 5]
Supply chain vulnerabilities: In section 5, the national security threats to the U.S.A. are those that every sovereign state currently faces. The global pandemic has certainly stalled lives and revealed vulnerabilities in traditional institutions. During this time, workers encountered significant unemployment and endured isolation. Marginalized communities were severely impacted, leading to increased poverty rates worldwide. The COVID-19 pandemic exposed flaws in global supply chains, but Mr. Trump’s solution does not reflect solution’s associated with democratic values. We know from experience that isolation is a recipe for disaster in times of crisis. By imposing tariffs, the government has chosen to isolate itself from the global economy, resulting in more supply chain disruption. Making his course of action seem counterintuitive.

Foreign industrial policies: In section 6, the Proclamation states that economic allies in the automobile industry have become a threat to national security. Stating that Korea, Mexico, and Canada have aggressively expanded their automobile industries by benefiting from subsidies for these countries as part of trade agreements. Trade agreements that benefited the economies of each sovereign state involved.

Material and labor shortages: Section 5 of the proclamation states that American-owned automotive manufacturers have experienced numerous supply chain challenges, including material and parts input shortages, labor shortages and strikes, and electrical-component shortages. I do not doubt that these shortages are actual, due to the pandemic, but as previously mentioned, the course of action the Trump administration has chosen will create more shortages. As for labor strikes and shortages, these domestic policy issues could have been addressed instead of using hostile tactics against sovereign states.

‘Based on the facts considered in that investigation, the Secretary found and advised me of his opinion that automobiles and certain automobile parts are being imported into the United States in such quantities and under such circumstances as to threaten to impair the national security of the United States.” [Section 1, Proclamation 10908]

The purpose of Executive Order 14289 is to reflect the findings of the Secretary of Commerce’s investigation into the automobile industry. He had found that there are such quantities and under such circumstances that threaten national security.

Under such circumstances, I will assume that these are the previously mentioned unusual circumstances. But the quantities of the industry cannot be unusual or extraordinary. As these quantities can and should be quantified, we can find them and analyze them with previous years to see how those quantities were, in actuality, good for the American economy. Wording in legal documents, such as ‘Such quantities’, suggests malicious intent and disregard for principles of ethics, where an autonomous individual can determine whether the information provided is of beneficence and is non-maleficent.

The Trade Representative’s negotiations did not lead to any agreements of the type contemplated by section 232. [Section 3, Proclamation 10908]

Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 [Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 | Congress.gov | Library of Congress] grants the President of the United States the authority to adjust imports if they threaten national security. But as section 3 states, the trade representative’s negotiations did not see the findings of the investigation of the Secretary of Commerce as fit for implementing section 232, leading me to question the legitimacy of the tariffs.

In my opinion, these tariffs are maliciously intended against a sovereign neighbouring state such as Canada.

These actions can only be viewed as a fascist government influencing geopolitical stability by proceeding with further isolation and vicious attacks on marginalized communities. Before they move forward, we must see that a fascist state begins by disrespecting all principles of ethics, and when the judicial system begins to be affected, this is when they have gained power. History repeats itself, and neo-fascists have taken the time to learn from their forefathers. Creating a more vicious campaign against humanity.

I now consider the U.S.A. a fascist state and wish it were seen as such. Their domestic policies suggest such, and the wording in these legal documents indicates a degradation of their judicial system. The fascists have begun demolishing the sanctity of the judicial system. The fight to keep it intact is not against the institution itself, but against the men and women who undermine the foundations of democracy and liberty. These individuals are neo-fascists.

President Donald Trump may either be a neo-Nazi or be influenced by psychopaths and sociopaths who lack remorse, empathy, and any sense of human decency. These individuals are the descendants of the men and women who executed millions of people worldwide. In every nation, they have had their version of the genocide caused by fascism. In contemporary America, Latinos and Black Americans have now been targeted.
May 4, 2025