The Webster’s Dictionary describes the word “Dereliction” as one indicating intentional or conscious neglect, as referred to duty or principles, and normally it is applied to military situations, where duty plays a fundamental role. It probably hasn’t been applied to medical situations often, if at all. However we feel that it fits perfectly into certain current circumstances.

For this very reason we ask the question: how else would you classify a situation where your health care provider encounters something very special, never seen before in the medical circles, but still maintains his/her silence and proceeds as nothing amazing had just happened?

Is it Dereliction of Duty to put the perceived interests of colleagues and ruling organizations above the well being of the public? Is it Dereliction of Duty when someone shamelessly lies to an unsuspecting individual who has placed his/her faith in the organization represented by the uniform worn, i.e. the white coat? Is it Dereliction of Duty to intentionally withhold details on the negative effects produced by the proposed treatment, simply to avoid facing natural resistance to it? Is it Dereliction of Duty to knowingly misrepresent the benefits of proposed drugs, in order to entrap a client? Are such actions really different from the behavior of a used car salesperson? Except, of course, for the fact that salespeople did not participate in a graduating ceremony, where an oath was required.

Armed with the excuse that cancer is incurable and all that can be done for it is to “extend” the life of patients, members of the medical establishment have consistently and consciously violated the “first do no harm” principle and, in so doing, they have by definition become guilty of dereliction of both duty and principles. This of course does not simply apply to oncologists, but to all members of the AMA “en mass”.

It is in fact Dereliction of Duty when a patient , suffering from a herniated disk, is informed that in order to be free of pain and be able to walk again, the only option available is major invasive surgery; when in fact, if such option is selected, the patient will likely not be free of pain for the rest of his/her life.

It is also undoubtably Dereliction of Duty when a patient is told that by perennially ingesting “appropriate” prescription drugs, he or she will live a longer and better life than it could be done by simply relying on natural remedies.

We are not questioning the occasional need for special medications, to quickly resolve a condition requiring urgent care, we are referring to the Big Pharma driven tendency to keep a patient on multiple medications, for the rest of his/her unnaturally altered life.

We are in fact questioning the habit to mutilate, without hesitation, an unsuspecting patient, with the excuse that such barbaric practices represents the only way to save his/her life, when it is very well known by the proposing party, and the entire industry, that in the cases of cancer, surgery only serves the purpose of spreading the cancer at an accelerated rate, and that the preceding and/or accompanying chemotherapy reduces the malignant growth by an insignificant percentage; and it more often than not gives rise to other types of cancer, with a clear preference for the liver as target. It is also very well known by providers that radiation therapy is to blame for the appearance of cancer in alternate locations, with a preference for lungs and bone, but in fact does very little to eliminate the lingering cancer sources.

We are not simply questioning all of the above accepted practices, but we are labeling as Dereliction of Duty the stubborn insistence of relying upon them, in spite of the disconcerting evidence that such approaches are damaging to the patient, with little or no redeeming qualities. There is only one possible conclusion for these events, and it spells deception of the patients, motivated by the refusal to accept changes and progress, even when the best interest of the public is at stake.