A 31-year-old father of two (with one child on the way) is being denied a life-saving heart transplant by Brigham and Women’s Hospital, in Boston, because, they say, he will not accept the mRNA gene vector injection.
A Boston hospital is opting against providing a heart transplant for a man who refuses to get vaccinated against COVID-19.
DJ Ferguson, 31, is desperately in need of a heart replacement, but will not get a COVID-19 vaccine. That puts him up against Brigham and Women's Hospital's (B&W) policy, which requires transplant patients to be vaccinated against the virus.
We’ll avoid digging into Ms. Mazziotta’s sloppy use of the term “vaccine,” and focus on profound economic, ethical, and constitutional realities hiding behind the curtain.
'My son has gone to the edge of death to stick to his guns and he's been pushed to the limit,' DJ's father, David Ferguson told CBS Boston.
DJ, a father of two with another child on the way, is severely ill but ineligible due to his vaccination status.
'His heart has now deteriorated so much to the point where it will not work on its own,' David said.
'In a statement shared with PEOPLE, Brigham and Women's Hospital said that they do not comment on specific patients due to HIPAA, but that their policy is designed to give organs to patients that are most likely to survive.'
In addition to the fact that the 1996 HIPAA statute brazenly imposes federal demands on insurance companies that the feds aren’t constitutionally or morally sanctioned to make, and added to the fact that the Clinton-era statute also claims for the feds the power to collect your medical information, contrary to the Fourth Amendment, this statement also exposes the fact that the feds unconstitutionally prohibit organ sales, a prohibition that decreases supply, and puts many lives at risk.
But the shortage is just part of the problem:
‘Given the shortage of available organs, we do everything we can to ensure that a patient who receives a transplanted organ has the greatest chance of survival,’ they said. ‘Our Mass General Brigham healthcare system requires several CDC-recommended vaccines, including the COVID-19 vaccine, and lifestyle behaviors for transplant candidates to create both the best chance for a successful operation and to optimize the patient's survival after transplantation, given that their immune system is drastically suppressed. Patients are not active on the waitlist without this.
Regardless of the practical problems argued by B&W and Mr. Ferguson (who worries that the jab would cause heart problems itself, and he might oppose abortion, which is a factor in the creation of the gene-vector injections), this brings us to the point at which political divisions could come into play…
Leftists might see hypocrisy in conservatives’ supporting Mr.Ferguson and the demand that he be helped by B&W.
Right-wingers might point out that leftists used to loudly proclaim that there is a “right” to healthcare (even while right-wingers do so, they argue counter to their own principles, again).
So, to bring clarity to the ethical-political debate, let’s make something clear…
Brigham and Women’s Hospital is tax-subsidized.
Not only has it received MILLIONS in federal grants, this Harvard-affiliated teaching hospital in 2017 agreed to pay the feds $10 million to settle government allegations of fraud associated with its receipt of massive National Institutes for Health (NIH) grant money.
Mr. Ferguson has been forced to subsidize this medical facility (and to subsidize Harvard, which also receives tons of loot in federal grants - $9 million in “Coronavirus – CARES ACT” grants, alone) for years. And now, the very institutions he’s been shaken down to pay are denying him the chance to save his life and be with his family for years to come.
Look, no one has a “right” to anything, be it health care, food, or education. Claiming one has a right TO the fruits of another person’s labor is immoral and a claim on the power of enslavement.
But making this "claim" on another person’s labor is precisely what Brigham and Women’s and Harvard have done, indirectly, through the machinery of theft called government. And now, leftists take the stance that this man, who has been victimized by taxation for decades, cannot protest when denied the very "healthcare" they claim he has a "right" to receive?
How many times in the 1990s and early 2000s did leftist media and political blowhards bloviate about so-called “cherry-picking” by independent health insurance companies and “denials of service” in the face of what the left claims is a “right to health care”?
How many times did leftists soon cheer when Obamacare had its “death panels” hidden in it under the guise of the “Best Practices” panel – the panel that rations health care coverage in the same way private companies could, except that the government is not voluntary, while working with private companies to set conditions and payments IS a voluntary choice?
Finally, how often will Americans see leftists cheer the denial of health services to desperate people -- and now, see them CHEER or REMAIN SILENT because those people won’t take the mRNA gene injection as a condition of receiving care?
The latter question is being posed now, in Boston.
It might be a good idea to ask leftists where they stand.
Dr. Science is predicting a "3 dose regimen" of vaccines for children younger than 4-years-old. pic.twitter.com/FtiYlWxG7F— MRCTV (@mrctv) January 26, 2022