‘TRUST’
CAERS Substack Article #85
Trust is defined as a firm belief in the truth and reliability of someone or something. For a species as social as we are, trust is a critical issue because we base many of our most important relationships on this concept. It strikes me that there are at least two kinds of trust.
The first relates to honesty: we believe that what a person says is what they believe to be true. That does not mean that they cannot be mistaken; it simply means that they are not trying to deceive us intentionally. The second is the reliability issue: that not only are they relating to us what they believe to be true, but what they relate to us is in fact a very accurate representation of reality.
In medical practice we cannot possibly know all that there is to know; even so-called ‘experts’ have a finite amount of knowledge and understanding of their field. Because medical science is constantly evolving, regulatory bodies do expect health care professionals to keep track of advancements. However, even if we diligently try to keep up to date it does not mean that we cannot err, but such ignorance is deemed remediable with further education. For that reason, although lack of knowledge can be problematic, it is not necessarily a sign of moral failure.
On the other hand, being dishonest about what we say is a very different matter entirely. Such behaviour is more worrisome and is considered to be far more egregious in nature than simply not knowing something. It implies a legitimate concern about the moral integrity of the health care professional. In other words, if you make an honest mistake admit to it, but whatever you do, don’t lie.
As a family doctor, I was a generalist, so almost by definition my knowledge was broad but shallow; I seldom could do anything more than skim the surface of any topic. But my ability to see the big picture and help patients identify their core values upon which to make their decisions were my strengths. When I didn’t know something (which was frequent), I admitted to it. If I erred, as tough as it was, I tried to admit to that as well; I felt that my Hippocratic oath demanded it, despite how uncomfortable it might be to disclose. My ethical directive was to put the needs of the patient above my own needs, especially my own ego needs.
I suspect that this is how most of us feel about our interactions with others in general. We seldom expect anyone’s perspective to be the last word on any topic, but if we trust someone, we count on the fact that despite the limitations of their experience they are nonetheless relating their truth to us as accurately as possible. We trust that being honest with us is of utmost importance to them; it trumps any personal agenda they might have.
The marketplace is very different; the dictum ‘caveat emptor’, buyer beware, is best remembered when engaging in commerce. That is the difference between capitalism and medical practice or personal relationships. In the former, we know that the primary goal of the seller is to advance their position. That does not mean that the seller is necessarily untrustworthy; it just means that the onus is on the buyer to do their homework first. The latter relationships, however, are fiduciary in nature, ones based in trust. Health care professionals are expected to take an oath and function at a higher level than in corporate culture, for example.
It takes time to build trust; the more often we find that an individual speaks their truth to us, explaining clearly the limitations of their knowledge, the more likely we are to trust them in the future. Although trust can take a long time to build, it can be shattered very easily, much like fine china. That is why we tend to surround ourselves with people with similar levels of honesty and trust, as well as similar values. For these reasons, it is not surprising that favouritism and nepotism are common. I suspect that if most of us rose to political power or started a business, we would be predisposed to appointing or hiring people we know who share our life perspectives and values; in other words, people we trust, including close friends or family. And we are more likely to provide advancement to those same people as well. Is this a problem and if so, why?
The concept of ideology springs to mind. Ideologies often get a bad rap as being something suspicious or fundamentally worrisome by their nature. At its simplest, however, ideology means a philosophy of how life should be lived and how the world should run. So, it is likely that we all ascribe to some ideologies. We often feel closest to and have greater trust in those who share ideologies resembling our own. Similar to favouritism and nepotism, how can we know if an ideology is potentially harmful rather than helpful?
I suspect that we may lament ideologies, and the subsequent preferential treatment they may spawn (favouritism and nepotism), when they favour unjustifiably only a fortunate few of the ideologue’s choosing. We have more respect for ideologies that operate in a transparent fashion using clear democratic principles that treat those impacted by policies in a respectful and fair manner. We should be wary of ones that are dictatorial, that are not allowed to be questioned, or that disregard fundamental human rights. In such cases, deception tends to be the norm.
Fairness is a fundamental ethical principle, something we understand even as children. We want behaviours, especially those of people in positions of power and influence, to be transparent and based on widely accepted ethical principles of justice that are grounded in respect for the individual. When ideological principles are consistently applied equally to everyone while recognizing the importance of context, and are open to criticism and improvement, we are more likely to feel that they are fair and reasonable.
The philosopher Immanuel Kant believed in duty—the duty to do the fair thing even if we are not inclined to do so or it is not to our personal benefit. Aristotle felt that virtue is practice, and the more we work to be virtuous and fair to others the better people we become. Ideologies that promote the ideals of truth-telling, transparency, respect for the individual, justice and fairness for all are likely to be ideologies more worthy of support than opposition.
Which requires that trust be at the core of any worthy ideology; a trust that the best interest of a free majority, not just a controlling minority, is the goal. It doesn’t mean that mistakes won’t be made. But it does mean that we will try not to do so, admit when we do and do our best to correct them. More crucially, we will endeavour not to intentionally mislead with lies or half- truths.
Has your trust in some of our most important societal institutions been affected during the pandemic, either for the good or for the worse? How important is that to you? Have you witnessed any ideologies that are particularly troubling or praiseworthy?
Don’t underestimate the importance of trust in our lives or in the life of our nation. We lose a significant part of our humanity when trust is eroded. If there has been such an erosion, no effort should be spared in trying to regain it. Without it we will be just a shell of our former selves.
J. Barry Engelhardt MD (retired) MHSc (bioethics)
CAERS Health Intake Facilitator
"Has your trust in some of our most important societal institutions been affected during the pandemic, either for the good or for the worse? "
Please explain to me how someone's trust for societal institutions could have been affected for the "good" or better, when we KNOW now (and some of us knew then) that NEVER in the history of this planet has an UNSEALED mask stopped the spread of a respiratory virus? And when I say unsealed, think anything other than hazmat. Yet our governments and medical industries as a whole INSISTED that we wear them, and in some cases arrested people that did not. And we now know that wearing masks for prolonged periods of time, puts us at risk of bacterial pneumonia. And it is our 'societal institutions' that forced these ridiculous things on our children.
Then we have the ridiculous idea that social distancing is a thing, and that standing 3 to 6 feet apart will some how protect you from a virus that we exhale as an aerosol and can travel 17.2 feet. But again, it was our societal institutions that forced this on us.
We then have the never ending lies that our governments and 'health authorities' kept getting caught in regarding the injections which do NOT meet the criteria of being classified as a 'vaccine'. They said it was tested and approved, and then admitted it was neither. They said it would prevent you from catching a corona virus, and then admitted it wouldn't. They said it would prevent you from passing it to someone else, and then admitted that that too was a lie. So in the end, accepting those injections offered no benefit other than you could avoid THEIR threats of isolating you and preventing you from working, traveling, and essentially surviving. On the flip side, we now KNOW that the mountain of studies, statistics and testimonials we have PROVE that the injections are DEADLY.
So back to my original question...how could anyone now trust our societal institutions more than before after they have been used as a weapon against us and our families?
What are you implying Barry when you say "We lose a significant part of our humanity when trust is eroded. If there has been such an erosion, no effort should be spared in trying to regain it."?
It almost sounds if you are suggesting we find a way to trust our governments, health authorities, and overall 'societal institutions' who are guilty of knowingly and in some cases unknowingly attacking us. Would you have suggested that the greater population including the Jewish community find a way to regain their trust in Hitler and his nazi party? Or the Russian people should have found a way to regain trust in Stalin, or the Chinese in Mao?
If history has taught us anything, it is that when those that we have allowed to be in power and control turn against 'we the people', and use our gov't's, militaries, and overall 'societal institutions' against us; we must not delay in coming together, rising up and removing them from their positions of power and control. And I am not just speaking about politicians and the puppets acting as our 'leaders'; but I am also speaking of those who hide in the shadows and have directing our leaders for over 245 years. We can know who they are by their public admissions, their published books and documents, and their consistent agenda against humanity. And that would be the Rothschild (formerly the Bauer family)/Rockefeller Klan and their Bilderberg goons i.e. Soros, Schwab, Gates and alike.
If you learn one thing from this, let it be that things are not as they appear. And know that there IS a very real agenda against humanity as a whole.