The mandate to report abuse in all its forms (physical, sexual, and emotional) that related to deprivation of medical care and deprivation of educational services or psychological services are related not only to institutional resources and the documented reporting systems that are available to institutions but are also subject to reporting by individuals, whether family members or members of the community where individuals have information and experience as observers of those engaged in abusive behavior.
The mandate to report abuse goes beyond institutional responsibility as individual reporting of acts that clearly support situations of danger to children are critical to a public zeitgeist of humanitarian concern.
Estrangement from empathy for catastrophic suffering as a social norm appears to be present in the 21st century and has much to do with the chilling effect of the legal processes that are available to abusers to protect privacy and reputation by way of the chilling effect of the availability of legal action to sue for various forms of defamation and reputation infringement.
However, the mandate to report that which is demonstrably in one’s immediate, present, observable experience is compelling and needs to be addressed in a current societal atmosphere in which child abuse in multiple forms related to highly lucrative forms of child exploitation are easily accessible to those with power and authority.
Yet the moral imperative to report what are clear and present facts available and provable must take precedence in all circumstances when abuse is incontrovertible.
Ethical guidelines in medical practice began with the Hippocratic oath as a formulation of moral truth that dedicated the life of the medical practitioner to the service of humanity with the clear intent of doing no harm. Acknowledgement of autonomy and dignity of patients were at the center of the Hippocratic oath. The respect for human life and the relationship between a physician’s fiduciary responsibility to a patient were canonized in the statement that age, disability, nationality, political affiliation, race, sexual orientation, social standing, or any other factor would be allowed to prejudice the physician’s responsibility and duty to the patient. Respect for secrecy and privacy between patient and doctor were considered of the utmost importance. So was respect for consciousness and dignity in accord with good medical practice as defined by the medical licensing boards.
Among the tenets of the Hippocratic oath was the acknowledgment that medical knowledge could be used to violate human rights and civil liberties. The acknowledgement in the Hippocratic Oath was an understanding that, given the capacity to manipulate medical information, that any information within the realm of consciousness of the physician would never be used to threaten, manipulate, or cause harm to patients.
The Hippocratic oath was adopted by the General Assembly of the Medical Association at Geneva in 1948 and, subsequently, that declaration was amended in 1968, 1983, and 1994. It was further revised in 2005, 2006, and 2017. The Declaration of Geneva was reflective of an attempt to articulate humanitarian goals of medicine following medical crimes that had been committed in German-occupied Europe.
During the post World War 2 era and after the foundation of the World Medical Association, concern for the state of medical ethics was reflective of the disclosures related to details of the Nazi doctors’ trial at Nuremberg which ended August 1947.
The revelations that were unearthed about the Imperial Japanese Army and their medical experimentation at unit 731 in China during World War 2 informed the medical community of the need for a moral center and an affirmation of a set of guidelines that informed human rights, the rights of patients, and the limits of scientific experimentation. A study committee was appointed to prepare a “charter of medicine,” which was adopted as a promise that every doctor would make upon receiving their degree or diploma.
The medical vow that was adopted in Geneva in 1948 was agreed upon in the name of the Declaration of Geneva. The World Medical Association adopted the universal declaration of human rights that was declared by the United Nations general assembly in 1948 which established the “security of the person.”
The moral tenets of these declarations appear to have been severely eroded in current medical and legal practice given the threats and intimidations provided by the legal practice to suppress controversial confrontations of multiple forms of abuse against vulnerable populations.
Whistleblower statutes exist to protect whistleblowers within institutions and the unique citizen within a society who seeks to reveal controversial secrets continues to be left to reporting based on their own conscience and moral imperative. The erosion of civil rights and liberties is a process that the medical and legal professions have participated in eroding in the 21st century to facilitate the advances of medical research with respect to an ability to share medical information for the benefit of healthcare as whole and advances in science and for profit motive.
What we have seen is a process in which the medical profession has been freed from exercising fundamental concern for the health, welfare, and dignity of the individual patient to societal concerns that protect against disclosures that have legal/criminal implications of a given patient.
When the rights of individual patients comes into conflict by the need to share information that impacts other individuals or institutions that have control or impact the patient issues related to physical and emotional harm to the patient attributing responsibility to others that may be accused of harm to the individual patient has become the realm of law in the public interest that has in fact come to be known as compromising protections that should be afforded to vulnerable populations.
The mandate to report abuse as an individual moral imperative must be protected as the most critical bastion of freedom, speech, and reporting criminal acts in the face of potentially overwhelming threat, coercion, and intimidation.
With the coming of the age of the pronouncement of parental alienation as a blanket defense against accusations of all forms of child abuse, the chilling effect upon reporting abuse has been massive. It provides the family court system with the unique authority provided by the ability to hide behind the global assertion of judicial discretion which suggests that judges have extensive information about any given case. It provides them with exclusive authority to make decisions without admitting the underlying evidence.
The ability of judges to hide behind a glacial shield of discretion without providing the authenticated evidence on which their decisions are made is creating a realm for the growth of criminal activity, spearheaded by racketeering and the ability of collusion. This gray area produced by the secrecy provided by discretion has provided a breeding ground for family court collusion and vast criminal activity, exploiting a captive audience subject to an illegal process that involves power and authority over custody and division of marital assets.
The case of the award of custody of a minor child to the family of the known murderer of the child’s father is rife with all of the elements that are in direct violation of every known code of ethics that protects vulnerable populations subject to professions of proprietary knowledge.
The Rubio case is the poster child for the exploitation of unwarranted expertise where a legal authority has designated a professional as invested with both intellectual and academic expertise as well as moral authority where that authority first of all does not exist at all and, second, where moral authority according to basic standard professional practice has been violated to the nth degree.
The court in the Rubio case not only violated and abandoned the most meager concerns for basic professional expertise, but for the abandonment of any moral authority or dignity as the individuals who were awarded both financial remuneration for their services and the authority to make critical decisions on behalf of a child were not only professionally incompetent and lacked the most minimal expertise in the actions that they exercised, but the actions of Jan Falk, the unlicensed practitioner, assigned to make custody recommendations on behalf of the case, lacked any and all degrees of even minimal respect for the dignity and privacy of the clients whose most private and confidential information was entrusted to her.
In a visit to a nail salon, Ms. Falk was heard to discuss intimate details of a case that she was retained as an expert for. Ms. Falk provided details of the case as she was the client in a nail salon, having her nails attended to. She discussed intimate details of the case with the assembled members of the nail salon and other people who were present.
As the case that she was discussing was a high-profile case in the community in which she chose to have her nails attended to, members of the listening audience were personal friends and acquaintances of the individuals Ms. Falk chose to ridicule, humiliate, and defame.
News of her comments were communicated back to the subject of Ms. Falk’s ridicule.
Ms. Falk represented herself to the court who appointed her as a licensed professional though her licensing and training fell far below the standard that would dictate any reasonable applicability to the skills needed to evaluate extraordinarily complex issues related to a criminal proceeding and multiple criminal charges against the individual who committed the murder and the circumstances in which this individual was raised and was able to exercise a crime of such heinous magnitude.
The indignities visited upon the subjects of Ms. Falk’s enmity and her ability to savagely humiliate those who were party to tragic events speaks to a level of personal depravity and ignominy that should undermine the credibility of the report that she submitted and was able to have accepted by the court, which passed judgment, improperly and illegitimately made decisions that will have incomprehensibly damaging consequences, not only for the subject child but for all members of the two families associated with the tragedy that resulted from the murder of the child’s father.
The magnitude of the crimes committed by all parties associated with the adjudication of custody from the moment that this individual was murdered is of such consequence that the entire case needs to be thoroughly scrutinized and studied for an attempt at even potential rehabilitation for the much needed rescue of the child.
We have asked for and will continue to request that this report of Jan Falk from Cascades Family Resolution Center be dismissed, that the damages/charges against her be considered, which are being developed, and the charges both requesting a dismissal of the evaluation and a review of the actions of all those responsible for having retained such a thoroughly incompetent individual.