Why wasn't medical freedom included in the bill of rights?

The use of the term "medical freedom" is used by both pro-life and pro-abortionists. Is there a better term for pro-life to use?

Two of the issues I had to wrestle with when writing my proposed version of how a state should manage data was the issue of medical freedom. In fact, at the very beginning of my Act I listed, among the Principles a privacy statement.

The Patient-Health Care Provider Relationship:  The medical care, along with all the data collected during that process, is a private relationship between the patient and the patient’s health care provider.  The patient owns those data, no one else.  The patient may permit other individuals or organizations to have a copy of those data through a signed document (a HIPPA document).  The state nor any other organization may not access those data, even through a technology-created back door.  With respect to all the databases described in this act, the patient must give permission for the SCHIAS to access the patient’s data. The PII clause, next, protects the patient from misuse of those data by anyone, including the state.

What does Privacy have to do with medical freedom. Everything. If the state can access your medical data without your permission, then the state, through fear, intimidation, and misinformation, can manipulate the data and, therefore, the patient, groups, and society as a whole with that knowledge. This was a lesson learned the hard way through the Covid-era.

The other medical freedom-related issue I had to address in the act was the legal issue of who owns the data. True, as you can see above, I said I wrote in the Principles that the patient owned the data. But is that true? In my experience, which included medical executive experience directing the implementation of both EMRs and entire diagnostic center equipment software and database management for the equipment, along with linking those data to the EMR data, my belief was that the patient owned the data. But that was just what I accepted as true.

To write the Act, I had to validate my assumption. Since I have been implementing and studying AI since 1962, and was, obviously, a pioneer in the field- likely one of the first individuals to get a PhD in what would later be called AI, I am always testing out various implementations of AI tools. I tested Chat GPT and found it was, based on my knowledge, very inaccurate. It seemed to infuse politics in the majority of its answers. And yes, I know it bases its answers on relatively old data. However, that shouldn’t have resulted in the political twist it give to the answers. (I suppose its reliance on wiki was a key weakness, with wiki infused with politics, left-leaning politics.)

Anyway, I’ve been testing Google’s Gemini. I found the answers from that chat engine to be less biased and more accurate.

Since medical freedom is used in society as a “right,” I asked Gemini

I asked Gemini: “Why wasn’t medical freedom included in the bill of rights?” It’s response.

Well, that was way out to lunch! I wasn’t asking a political question; I was asking an historical question. It gave me a political answeer. But at least it didn’t charge ahead with a blatently political answer.

I did do a search with that question as the search string, though not with Google. I don’t use Google search; I use a more private search engine. It’s response pointed to a web site for “Ridgecrest Herbals.”

There is a Health Freedom Coalition, which is apparently sponsered by Ridge Crest Herbals. I wasn’t sure what this Coalition was about, but the web page gave what I consider to be the good explanation as to why medical freedom was not in the Bill of Rights and that that the Health Freedom Coalition was advocating for including it in the Bill of Rights:

Health Freedom is your fundamental human right of self-determination and self-protection. What is the Health Freedom Amendment? Simply put, it assures your right to decide for yourself how to treat and protect your own health.

As an American, do you have health freedom? It’s a natural human right, but it isn’t in the Bill of  Rights or any other amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments recognize rights not enumerated in the Constitution, and U.S. courts have recognized other unlisted rights, like the right to privacy, or the right to be left alone. But since they haven’t yet recognized health freedom, we propose a new constitutional amendment to make clear where “We the People” stand. What would that look like? Here is one proposal:

Health autonomy is a fundamental human right. The right of the people to give, receive, refuse, or share health care, treatments, and information, freely or for consideration, for themselves, their families, or consenting others, by such means as they may choose, shall not be infringed.

They continue by giving their explanation of why medical freedom wasn’t specifically mentioned:

Why wasn’t health freedom included in the Bill of Rights? Probably because that document listed rights that the British had repeatedly violated in America—they were top of mind. When the Constitution was adopted in 1789, health care was tightly intertwined with religious tradition. England had fought a long and bloody civil war to replace the Roman Catholic church with the Anglican Church in England and the Calvinist church in Scotland. Religious wars in Ireland persisted well into the twentieth century. The various established Churches had condemned herbalists, especially midwives, and other female practitioners, as heretics or witches. Catholics, Jews, Puritans, Quakers, and other religious dissenters were persecuted and even put to death for following their own health codes. So, to colonial Americans, health care was just another aspect of religious freedom. 

That seems to be a fair, reasonable explanation the present “state” of medical freedom.

Oh, I did go back and ask Gemini “What is the Health Freedom Coalition?” It gave a whaat I consider an unbiased answer:

What is the Health Freedom Coalition?

The Health Freedom Coalition is a non-profit organization that advocates for individual rights related to healthcare. They believe in the following principles:  

• Individual Choice: People should have the right to choose their own healthcare providers and treatments.  

• Informed Consent: Patients should be fully informed about their healthcare options and risks before making decisions.

• Limited Government Intervention: The government should not excessively regulate healthcare or interfere with the doctor-patient relationship.

The Health Freedom Coalition often supports alternative and complementary medicine practices, and they may oppose certain government regulations or policies that they believe restrict individual healthcare choices.  

It's important to note that while the organization advocates for individual rights, there may be differing opinions within the group on specific healthcare issues.

The above seems a good outline of what Health Freedom, or Medical Freedom is. However, I have a concern, perhaps your’s too, that this term can and is used by the other side. Specifically, if you are for Health Freedom, then you have to be FOR abortion. Isn’t that the core theme of the pro-abortionists? Won’t you loose any argument that Health Freedom means that a it is the woman’s choice as to whether she has an abortion. Well, the answer back is: What about the father’s choice? What about the child’s choice. Abortion is unique in that there are other people- humans- involved. Health Freedom is tied to “informed consent.” I’ll be discussing informed consent as part of the parent responsibility in society in general and in the school situation in particular. Informed consent requires a response from the child. But if the child can’t understand the implication and give an informed response, according to the child’s “Health Freedom,” then abortion is not a choice for the mother. The child has no opportunity to give informed consent.

The phrase Health Freedom or Medical Freedom is loaded and is used as a battle cry on both sides of the abortion issue. Unfortunately, those against abortion seem to be naive about its use by the pro-abortionist of the term. I believe that Health Freedom, the term used by the Health Freedom Coalition, is a better choice for what is meant. The definition could be better formed to explicitly address abortion, but it is a good start, both for general use and for use as a Constitutional amendment.