June 11, 2021
Villainy, the National Standard
Villainy and stupidity have been raised to the rank of a national standard, to the rank of a virtue in the abject “New World”.
What is grave is that the root of the stupidity, the wellspring of the villainy, are to be found in the schools and in the universities, there where our children are deformed, there where the “New normality” is being built.
This fact is irrefutably proved by the transcript of the hearing of Doctor Răzvan Constantinescu before a so-called “ethics committee” of the University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Iași.
If I were a student, or had a child studying at that university, I would change faculty!
At once! So as not to pervert myself or my child with the new ethics of the new normality.
As for Răzvan… honour to him!
We should all cry out to him, rightly and with good reason:
Dignum est!
“- t r a n s c r i p t -
Because a great many friends and acquaintances have asked me to tell them ‘how it was’, I have decided to present the transcript of the session. Since the Code of ethics and professional deontology of the university does not stipulate that the sessions of the Ethics Committee are secret and does not expressly forbid the publication of the content of the discussions, I decided that I may make known at least what I myself said during the hearing, if only for the extremely instructive character of the way in which I framed my defence. As — apart from the chairwoman of the committee (who also conducted the hearing) — none of the other members spoke, the text will be presented in the form of a dialogue between myself (RC), with my replies given exactly, word for word, and the chairwoman (P), with her replies in brief summary (only as much as is needed to keep the account coherent).
After I had signed the consent for the recording of the hearing and the composition of the committee had been presented to me, I asked for details of the circumstances in which the decision to summon me had been taken.
RC: – Can the Ethics Committee also act on its own initiative, or is a complaint needed?
P: – It can also act on its own initiative, but in your case it is a complaint.
RC: – Studying the Code of ethics and deontology, I saw that the complainant will remain unknown. I (laughing) know who it is; the text of the complaint bears the patina of the magic of Professor Mircea Onofriescu — well, I know you can neither confirm nor deny it; he claims that I denigrated the university, but he does not specify the denigrating sentence or words; he simply gives a longer text of mine and leaves it to you to work out for yourselves where the alleged “denigration” might be.
For me, being summoned before the Ethics Committee is a shadow, a stain — and, certainly, that is what the Code provides — but I do not think it right that anyone should be able to complain about anyone… If someone comes and says that I whistled in church three months ago, does the committee take it into account, is it obliged to act on the complaint?
P: – No, but here it is a matter of a statement which nevertheless involves the image of the university, and we decided to take it into consideration because it bears upon the values of the Code of ethics.
RC: – Good, so this committee is in practice adopting the complaint. I too received the text, but I did not understand where the “denigration” is. So that I may answer your questions to the point, I would ask you to tell me under which article/paragraph/letter of the Code of ethics my presumed deed would fall.
(general panic, 20 seconds of silence, then the institution’s legal adviser intervenes, indicating the article and the letter; I knew where she would send me, my finger was on that very page, so I set about interpreting the wording concerned in the Code)
RC: – I have found it. Art. 21 point (4): “the following constitute breaches of the obligation of loyalty…” and so on, letter d) “the carrying out of actions intended to discredit the University or gravely to affect its image and prestige” and letter e) “to express in public appraisals not in accordance with reality regarding the activity of the University”. I did not “carry out actions”, I expressed an opinion; there is no question of affecting “gravely” (do you hear!) the prestige of the University. On the contrary, I fulfil my obligation to defend the image of the University, precisely by showing that, in our academic world, there is a diversity of opinions, that there are doctors who, on the one hand, freely express their views and, on the other, do not agree with discriminatory measures which are not, according to Art. 13 paragraph (3), provided for by any law; in this way people say, ‘look, at the university there is democracy, there are people who oppose questionable decisions’… that is how I understand the defence of the University’s image.
I criticised a decision; if I criticised a decision of Prime Minister Cîțu, would that mean that I denigrate Romania?! Point e) says “to express in public appraisals not in accordance with reality”… But who establishes whether they are or are not in accordance with reality? Look, for example: yesterday the Court of Appeal of Cluj annulled a Government Decision which contained precisely such discriminations — a test or vaccination in order to take part in weddings, sporting competitions, artistic events and so forth; until the day before yesterday the criticisms would have been not in accordance with reality; today, conversely, they are in accordance with reality (!)
If we look at the dictionary definition of the term “denigration”, we see that it is equivalent to “disparagement”, “defamation”, “calumny”; now, “calumny” does not mean saying that someone is stupid (that is insult), but saying that someone has committed something unlawful, something wicked — that is calumny! So then, I have not calumniated, but I am now being calumniated through this complaint, as having denigrated the University. If, for example, I had said this: that the university sold false diplomas to certain Italian citizens during the term of rector Vasile Burlui, or that ten years ago I begged Professor Carmen Dorobăț by telephone to put a stop to the circus in the courtyard of the Infectious Diseases hospital, with students queuing with their record books and 100 euros inside them (for they came to me in tears), or that members of the academic community to which I too belong went to the anti-corruption prosecutors and lodged false denunciations against the then rector, Vasile Astărăstoae — those, yes, would have been grave, denigrating things, had they not been true. But, lo and behold, they later proved to be true, so the initial “denigration” was no longer any denigration at all.
I protested against a decision which does indeed breach university ethics, according to this very Code (waving it)! Here, at Art. 13 paragraph (3), and at Art. 42 letter c) — for I noted it down conscientiously — it says: “In the ‘Gr. T. Popa’ University no discrimination is permitted on grounds of age, ethnicity, sex, social origin, political or religious orientation, sexual orientation or other kinds of discrimination, with the exception of the affirmative measures provided by law” (and paragraph 5 states that this applies also to the academic assessment of students); now, testing and vaccination are not, for the time being, affirmative measures provided by law.
Art. 42 letter d) says: “the abuse of authority in order to impose without justification one’s own theories, concepts or results upon subordinate persons” — that is, these theories that are beginning to fall, in the United States and in Europe, one by one, with the masks, with the virus from the bats and so forth. So I, as a member of the teaching staff who has an examination on 17 June, have a theory imposed on me by my hierarchical superiors, and I am discriminated against by measures that are not provided for in any law. That is why I protested! And I believe that in this way I defended this Code of ethics which you are using: it forbids discrimination, I drew attention to the fact that it is being breached. See, now I appear in a favourable light. All the more since it says here, at Art. 7, that among the values and principles promoted in the academic world of the university figures, at point 1) no less, academic freedom; and it is described below, at Art. 9 paragraph (2): “presupposes the right of any member of the academic community to express his opinions openly…” And at the following point it says: “all members of the academic community of the ‘Gr. T. Popa’ University are guaranteed the right to criticise publicly, on well-founded and reasoned grounds, breaches of professional standards…” I brought arguments, so I observed this point. And I argued that the University — I did not put it quite like that, so as not to be too… “defamatory” — wishes to enrol in this cohort of, how shall I put it, “collaborationists”, for Timișoara enrolled in the campaign too, and Bucharest likewise, and now, behold, Iași too wants to distinguish itself. I have numerous groups — I noted it down — in which 4 students out of 9 were vaccinated and, immediately after this decision, another 4 were vaccinated; that is, there was a direct relation between this Decision, which I challenged, with its character of constraint and threat (that they lose the year if they lose the examination session), and the “vaccination marathon”. So that afterwards we too may report: look, we have vaccinated another 6,000 young people… And the 9th student rang me in tears: “What do I do?” Just as Professor Dorobăț’s students used to ring me back in 2010. What could I answer them?
It does not mean that we have a bad leadership; anyone can err. And this is, in my opinion, a mistaken decision, and I do not hesitate to say so. And I wrote something else there, of a negative character, unfortunately: that I have often been proud — and probably shall be again — of my membership of this institution, but this time I am ashamed, for we are the only university in the country with such a decision; that is, we wanted to show excess of zeal so as to be there, at the head of the column…
P: – Does anyone on the committee have questions?
(compensatory pause)
P: – Doctor, the object of this session is not whether the Decision of the University’s Administrative Council was good or not. However, it would have been preferable for you to bring these arguments first before the scientific community, before making them public. Differences of opinion we discuss within the institution, and afterwards we express ourselves outside the academic setting. This is not the place now to discuss the arguments for and against vaccination. You stated, with pain, I am convinced, that you are ashamed to be a member of the university, which obviously creates a current of opinion unfavourable to it…
RC: – No, because it is a momentary, passing feeling; you cannot repress it, you cannot hold it back.
P: – You took the public road directly, without first discussing these opinions with anyone, with someone in a position of responsibility in the university; these problems should first have been discussed within the scientific community.
RC: – Doctor, I had no other way; there were only a few days left. I did not intend to initiate a debate of opinion, a seminar, a symposium in which we should counsel one another; I initiated a public protest, the only one that could be effective or could ease the grief of those who felt discriminated against. In this respect there is no alternative but the public one.
I am surprised: I did not study Ethics at the faculty (I am old and the discipline was introduced into the programme later), but I like the field and I read up on it afterwards; from the books and lectures of Professor Astărăstoae and of yourself I learnt, and there was impressed on my mind, the following, which is extremely important for the profession of physician: that every medical act requires consent — so far, nothing new — and namely a FREE consent. “Free” means without constraints or threats. How can a consent still be “free” when the constraint appears: “you do not sit the examination!”? It is as though I had a patient with suspected gastric cancer and, after explaining to him what it consists of, how it is done and what it is for, I summed up: “Mr Ionescu, in order to make the diagnosis and choose the best course of treatment, this upper digestive endoscopy is absolutely necessary; please agree and sign the informed consent”, and he answered me that he trusts me, that he has understood the risks are minute and the discomfort minimal, but that he is nevertheless afraid and refuses the examination, and begs me not to be angry… and then I said to him, “very well, then you should know that I shall no longer come on the ward round; only my registrar will come.” If, in consequence, the patient now signed the consent form, would that consent still be “free”? I believe these are the things that ought to concern the Ethics Committee, not the tale-bearing of a well-known complainer! I have not seen the Ethics Committee take any position on that Decision of the Administrative Council, which is an abuse. And I should have another important subject for the Committee’s attention — perhaps here too you may act on your own initiative: that this Decision, which I have also challenged in court, urges our students to take part in a medical experiment using gene therapy (the manufacturer himself says it is in the testing phase until the end of 2023), which I believe to be the gravest departure from medical ethics!
P: – Do you wish to add anything further?
RC: – No, no; I was hoping the members of the committee would ask me things… I should like to sum up, at the end, my answer at this hearing: 1. I have denigrated nothing, on the contrary. 2. I had no other way. That business with “the committee”, let us wait…
P: – Why?
RC: – Because there were only a few days left until the examination session. And I myself have an examination now, on the 17th, and I am urging my lawyer to complete the application for suspension of the Decision. The students lost their case, but now it is my turn! I too want to sit the examination! And I do not wish to take any test! It is not provided for in the law, nor in my employment contract, that I must take tests before examinations. Let me just see whether anyone dares to throw me out of the examination!
P: – You ought to inform the university leadership.
RC: – Yes, I was summoned by the Rector; I was extremely ill in those days, I rang him, but he did not answer… Once we used to work together, we spoke two or three times on some days… Now I am an enemy of the party line. I saw these things in secondary school too, and that is why I am not afraid and shall remain unshaken. Men who encouraged my father in private, saying they support and admire him, but in public, when he looked around him, he saw emptiness. They left him alone. As a result he became a fugitive and an outcast, and I could not see him for five years. So it is nothing new to me. That is how dictatorship sets in. As long as I can, I shall fight with all my strength. With politeness towards the committees of inquiry and towards all the rest. Next comes the College of Physicians. Forgive me for having taken up your time for nothing.”
Find the post on FacebookThe Facebook archive keeps no permanent addresses for posts, and this entry has no photograph from which an address could be rebuilt. The button above opens directly a search by a phrase from the text, on the author’s page.
Comments
Have your say. Comments appear once approved.