The Source of Informed Consent
In what appears to be a coordinated effort, many states are getting ready to repeal legislative exemptions to vaccinations adopted decades ago, specifically philosophical, medical, and religious exemptions.
In New York, Assemblyman David DiPietro, has stated that lawmakers are planning to outlaw homeschooling, because they want to be able to vaccinate the children in the schools, without parental approval or knowledge.
However, one thing that can never be repealed is informed consent. A basic definition of Informed Consent is where a patient agrees to a health intervention based on an understanding of it.
According to Ralph Fucetola, JD, health freedom advocate and attorney:
Informed consent is separate from statutory exemptions and may not be abolished by legislative act. The right to informed consent is meaningless, without the right to refuse any medical intervention, including vaccination….government agencies and those acting under color of law are forbidden by long standing national and international law from coercing vaccination.
True informed consent is elusive. Most people do not know that when they agree to a medical drug or vaccine, they do not receive all the information, which should include alternative courses of action. While they may hear a full list of benefits for a procedure, it is rare they will also hear a full list of adverse effects. Many patients choose to accept medical interventions without doing any research of their own. Many are made to feel guilty or inferior for asking questions when it comes to their own self-interest. Many feel pressure to close the deal before they leave the office.
Numerous studies suggest that patients are consenting based on misconceptions. There is a failure of communication: doctors are not doing a good job of providing accurate information and/or patients are failing to process that information. For cancer intervention, patients do not hear that chemotherapy may only be beneficial for some cancers, and provide only a 2-5% survival rate for others. For vaccines, patients are not offered the multi-page package insert, which may require a magnifying glass and extra time to review the small print.
True Informed Consent
Informed Consent is an innate right of self-ownership, i.e., you own your body. Each person has the sole right to determine what happens to his or her own body. International law protects that right, but that right must be asserted to be protected. You cannot remain silent. Further, this right may not be defeated by Unconstitutional Conditions.
In Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hosp., 105 N.E. 92 (N.Y. 1914), the plaintiff, Mary Schloendorff, was admitted to New York Hospital and consented to being examined under ether to determine if a diagnosed fibroid tumor was malignant, but withheld consent for removal of the tumor. The physician examined the tumor, found it malignant, and then disregarded Schloendorff’s wishes and removed the tumor. Justice Benjamin Cardozo wrote in the Court’s opinion:
Every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body; and a surgeon who performs an operation without his patient’s consent commits an assault for which he is liable in damages. This is true except in cases of emergency where the patient is unconscious and where it is necessary to operate before consent can be obtained.
Schloendorff, however, had sued the hospital itself, not the physicians. For this reason, the Court found that a non-profit hospital could not be held liable for the actions of its employees, analogizing to the principle of charitable immunity.
Not everyone is offered a choice when it comes to medical treatments. However, everyone has the right to reject standard medicine and choose other forms of healing. There is no proper basis in law to compel someone to compulsory medication. Therefore, the government cannot forbid you from exercising your right.
The North Carolina Supreme Court wrote its opinion in Eubank v. Turner, 134 NC 82; In re Applicants for license 143 N.C. 15; S v. Hicks, ib., 693; Allen v. Traction Co., 144 N.C. 289; S v. Siler, 169 N.C. 317:
Medicine is an experimental, not an exact science. All the law can do is regulate the safeguard and the use of powerful and dangerous remedies like the knife and drugs, but it cannot forbid the dispensing of them.
Duty to Inform
- Medicine in the U.S., Australia, and Canada, takes a patient-centered approach: informed consent requires doctors to disclose significant risks, and risks of particular importance to that patient.
- Informed Consent is a medical and ethical obligation.
- Rights must be asserted to be preserved. Use your voice when called.
- International humanitarian law is clear: without clear, affirmative, memorialized information or informed consent, it must be assumed that informed consent has been withheld.
- If suing for the withholding of informed consent, sue people, not institutions.
- Implied Consent is not Informed Consent.
- Mandates are inconsistent with choice and a free society, free individuals, and freewill.
- Public schools have a right to refuse Informed Consent to students.
- The debate about making a “safer vaccine” is a ruse to eliminate rights.
Roadblocks to Informed Consent
In his 1949 book, Human Action: A Treatise on Economics, author Ludwig von Mises stated, “once the principle is admitted that it is the duty of government to protect the individual against his own foolishness, no serious objections can be advanced against further encroachments.” .
Vaccine Mandates are an example of Mises’ quote, where government steps in like a nanny to protect the people from themselves. With mandates there is no informed consent. Mandates are there to test the freewill of the people. And that test is being played out in California where vaccine mandates are ignoring human rights.
With the support of government, and the courts, public schools are weaponizing healthy children by refusing them entry into the classroom if unvaccinated. In Canada, while the protections provided by the Ontario Health Care Consent Act insure that individuals are protected from medical overreach, public health officials override these protections in the school setting resulting in a gross abuse of public health authority.
In the U.S., school-located vaccination (SLV) clinics are being implemented in public schools to show that government has the upper hand in protecting government-funded schools even if it fails to protect human rights. Not the first time, SLV was first implemented in 1875 with small pox vaccination in New York City. Also in NY, the city is looking to ban unvaccinated children from all public places.
New “protections” in the form of mandates are part of the president’s new Executive Order to disseminate flu vaccines using new modes of delivery that could obviate informed consent. An appointed government committee could vaccinate large regions faster using unconventional methods. If current methods of vaccine delivery fail to provide true informed consent, how would new forms of delivery, such as possible aerosolizing of vaccines, ensure informed consent?
I can’t imagine stratospheric aerosols ever being deployed…You can’t test it unless you basically do full-scale deployments…I just can’t see the world standing for that. You would have to notify everybody that might be affected – informed consent over the entire planet – and you’d have to do an Environmental Impact Statement and I can’t imagine everybody in the world agreeing to those changes… – Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor of Climatology, Rutgers University, 2012
The Source of Informed Consent
In a world where government removes real choice to suit an agenda under cover of “public health and safety,” the use of implied consent, is the new informed consent. See why the term “public” is a tool of social engineering here to remove rights.
Understand, first, that freedom is inborn. Rights do not come from government. At the same time, rights only serve to protect you if you choose to assert them. For instance, you can refuse to support the public school system by withdrawing from it. You can preserve your health by knowing about all your exposures, and learning how to protect yourself.
To preserve innate rights is to claim responsibility for your choices. In the same way, bodily protection is innate, and comes in the form of your immune system. No government, or war, can offer protection in the way your immune system does every minute of every day. The solution is clear. You nourish your mind with clear knowledge, your body with clean foods, and your choices with inner wisdom.
Once you accept that you were born with everything you need to protect yourself, everything outside you that claims to protect you becomes obsolete. Nutrition, hygiene, and sanitation are more powerful allies to you than any law or Executive Order, since if you fail to maintain your health, what do you really have?
The moral of the Informed Consent story? “Trust your gut” to preserve your rights. Go back to Nature. Grow your own food. Grow your community. Do your own research. Support local farmers. Seek out natural healers who use the plants of Nature that work with your body’s innate, immune system.
Under natural principles, true informed consent becomes irrelevant, not because it may be ignored by officials who claim to provide it, but because you realize that you must assert your rights to preserve choice and preserve health.
Rosanne Lindsay is a writer, blogger, and Naturopathic healer. She is the author of two books, The Nature of Healing: Heal the Body, Heal the Planet, and her story of thyroid disease reversal: Free Your Voice, Heal Your Thyroid, Reverse Thyroid Disease Naturally. Find her at Nature of Healing on Facebook. Consult with Rosanne to create a custom healing plan via Skype or Zoom or phone. Contact her at natureofhealing.org. Subscribe to her blog for updates at https://www.natureofhealing.org/blog/ and visit her podcast o archives at Blogtalkradio, and on Thursdays at 5 pm CDT.