NIH publishes paper--co-authored by Fauci's wife--explaining that threatening to fire the unjabbed is perfectly ethical

Anthony Fauci’s wife (Christine Grady) also happens to be the head of the Department of Bioethics at the National Institutes of Health.  In March the NIH published a paper she co–authored, defending the ethics of corporations threatening to fire employees who refused to take the non-vaccine.

The paper--titled “The Ethics of Encouraging Employees to Get the COVID‑19 Vaccination”--was written after biden ORDERED companies with more than 100 employees to fire employees who refused to take the non-vaccine.  That is, the paper was written to support the regime's outrageous, dictatorial ORDER.  Classic cover-your-ass-after-the-fact crap.

Grady claims a company threatening to fire you for refusing to take an experimental vaccine--which is now known to NOT prevent people from getting covid--is merely an "encouragement strategy" to "overcome vaccine reluctance," so is totally ethical

The goal of threatening to fire a parent, she says, is to "facilitate" "voluntary employee vaccination.”

"We threaten to fire you unless you obey, but it's, like totally voluntary, citizen."  For Democrats, that passes for sound logic:  This dictator--wife of a dictator--claims threatening to fire someone who won't be able to feed his or her family if their company fires 'em "facilitates voluntary vaccination."

Wow.

Grady and her co-authors claim this is a perfectly ethical tactic to “subtly pressure employees to get vaccinated.”  

"Subtle pressure"?  This bitch would fit right in at the Kremlin.

In classic Dem "newspeak" style the paper terms threatening to fire someone who doesn't submit to the jab is merely "employment-based vaccine encouragement."

Ah, "employment-based vaccine encouragement" does sound nicer, don't you think?

The authors call threatening to fire "resisters" an "ethically acceptable way to inform, encourage, strongly encourage, incentivize, and even subtly pressure employees to get vaccinated."

They claim such a threat is made “ethically appropriate” because there is “clear articulation about the consequences of not complying with the policy.”  It's fine because “employees have a choice between getting vaccinated or accepting the consequences of a choice to remain unvaccinated.”

Imagine if a man who beat his wife used this "reasoningc:" "Beating my wife was perfectly ethical because she had a choice to leave.  I clearly articulated the consequences if she stayed, and she voluntarily accepted the consequences of her choice."

If you don't see the flaw in that reasoning, you must be a Democrat .  Obviously neither the paper's authors nor anyone at the top of the NIH understood that the "logic" used by the authors was utter crap.

The authors write “Despite worries about a perception of unfairness, we argue that the selective easing of public health restrictions is ethically appropriate when done transparently and tied to objective public health guidance.”

Question: As used by the authors, what does the phrase "easing of public health restrictions" mean?  As used in the quote above, it doesn't seem to have any coherent meaning in the context they use it, suggesting they just threw in "easing restrictions" to fool the public.

This paper is a classic "cover your ass" effort to support biden's ORDER that thousands of companys threaten to fire any employee who refused to submit to the jab.

"We can threaten to fire you for refusing the jab, and that's perfectly fine because we made the consequences clear to you.  We gave you a choice."

Imagine a mugger holding a gun to your head and demanding you hand over your billfold.  Perfectly ethical, citizen, as long as there was a “clear articulation about the consequences of not complying."  You handed over your billfold entirely voluntarily.  Got it? 

War is peace.  Freedom is slavery.  Ignorance is strength.  Keep voting Democrat, citizen.

Source: 

https://thenationalpulse.com/2022/05/18/fauci-wife-authors-paper-supporting-vaccine-pressure-campaigns/