By MAJ. THOMAS L.
REMPFER and MAJ. RUSSELL E. DINGLE
SPECIAL TO THE SUN
HERALD (Biloxi, MS)
June 13, 2001
We are compelled to respond to The
Sun Herald's thought- provoking editorial titled: "In the
end, discipline had to win," concerning the conviction and
sentencing of Dr. John Buck for his refusal to comply with what
he believes is an illegal anthrax vaccine immunization program.
The argument you raise about an officer's oath of office is an
important one.
In your opening comments you
acknowledge that, "The court- martial of Air Force Capt.
John Buck was troublesome from the start."
Throughout the armed forces
there is widespread agreement that the anthrax vaccine program
was similarly troublesome from the start. Why? Because the
vaccine comes from a manufacturer that to this day is "not
validated" by the FDA due to significant deviations from
current good manufacturing practices.
Vaccine still lacks FDA approval
The anthrax vaccine manufacturing
plant was closed prior to the start of the mandatory vaccination
program, and has continually failed to garner FDA approval.
According to some of the military's own documents, the anthrax
vaccine is "unlicensed" and "experimental"
when used to protect against biological warfare. As a result, the
Defense Department assisted the manufacturer in preparing an
application to obtain a specific FDA-approved labeling for the
anthrax vaccine, but approval was never granted.
There is a law that specifically
states that service members cannot be inoculated with
experimental vaccines without their prior "informed"
consent, Title 10, Section 1107, of the U.S. Code. The U.S.
military has disregarded this law and these "old"
documents since the announcement of the anthrax vaccine program.
By offering these documents as
evidence, Dr. Buck was merely reminding the Defense Department of
its own previous official position, and was asking the judge to
allow the jury to evaluate the legality of the immunization
program.
Jury never heard this evidence
The U.S. Air Force judge would
not allow the documentary evidence to be presented in Dr. Buck's
court-martial to corroborate his contention that the anthrax
vaccine is experimental, making the mandatory program illegal.
The relevance of this evidence, scribed on military letterhead,
goes to the core of the debate you raise in your editorial - the
oath of office. It is an inherent requirement of Dr. Buck's oath
of office to ensure that the orders he follows and those he
issues are legal.
Your editors contend that the
"Air Force did what any branch of the American armed forces
has to do to survive as an effective military organization; it
enforced its rules. How could the military court have done
otherwise?"
The simple answer is that Dr.
Buck did what the military trained him to do - to challenge
illegal orders. Clearly, intellectual honesty in our ranks,
encouraged by respected commanders who do not have to resort to
blind obedience, is one of the defining characteristics of our
military, setting us apart from the militaries we've fought over
the past century.
So we are very encouraged that your
editorial poses an essential ethical question about whether Dr.
Buck's "oath as a physician compelled him to break his vow
to faithfully and dutifully serve his nation as an officer of the
United States Air Force."
Not disobeying, but upholding
his oath
Dr. Buck believes he was upholding
his oath as an officer, as well as his physician's oath, and in
doing so was dutifully serving both his nation and the United
States Air Force.
Dr. Buck, and the entire officer
corps of the U.S. military, swore an oath to support and defend
the Constitution of the United States, which is all about laws.
Dr. Buck's dedication to his oath of office is only compounded by
the Hippocratic oath and his medical profession. These oaths are
not in conflict, but instead are complementary.
In your editorial you caution,
"Woe to the branch of the armed forces that does not hold
its officers and enlisted personnel every bit as accountable for
their actions." And the members of our military agree
wholeheartedly, for if it is the Defense Department that is
breaking the law, the responsible leaders should be held
accountable for their actions and their abuse of power and
discretion, not Dr. Buck.
As our president and commander in
chief recently said at the U.S. Naval Academy commencement on May
25, "Changing the direction of our military is like changing
the course of a mighty ship ... all the more reason for more
research and development and all the more reason to get started
right away."
On May 30, Vice President Dick
Cheney echoed similar thoughts about risk-taking and courage at
the U.S. Air Force Academy graduation.
Military members worldwide know
this is the road less-traveled, but one courageously taken by Dr.
John Buck of Keesler Air Force Base in Mississippi.
The issues you raise are
important ones and are all about the oaths and codes that
military members pledge to our nation. Simplistic imperatives of
good order and discipline do not do justice to this complex
debate, historical precedents, nor to the oaths our military
members swear to uphold.
More information about the
anthrax vaccine investigation, including the work of Major Thomas
L. Rempfer and Major Russell E. Dingle, can be found at www.anthraxvaccine.net.
Source:
http://web.sunherald.com/content/biloxi/2001/06/13/opinion/4263451_06132001.htm