Share this message with this link:
http://drrimatruthreports.com/?p=24161
Assumed, Deemed or Implied Informed Consent
Violates International Humanitarian Law
Binding on All Nations
UPDATE: Petition Filed. Announcement Here:
http://drrimatruthreports.com/?p=24415
.
Ralph Fucetola, JD
Legal Director, Natural Solutions Foundation
President, Institute for Health Research
Use this Link to Share: http://tinyurl.com/InformedConsentRight
.
“Informed Consent is meaningless without the right to say: “No!” – Rima E. Laibow, MD
.
Loss of the Right to Informed Consent opens the door to human health cataclysm.
.
Human Rights have never been preserved without vigilance. The assertion of Right is the first step toward the respect for Right. This is as true regarding Informed Consent as with any other fundamental Right.
.
Informed Consent is a blazingly clear example of the principle of “Use it or lose it.”
.
.
Unless you affirmatively and effectively assert your Right to Informed Consent, your ability to resist unwanted medical interventions, such as vaccines and other invasive techniques, may be ignored by the medical system under government directive. Based on the ancient legal principal that “silence is acquiescence”[1] martial law or medical emergency authorities will presume that you consent to even experimental medical interventions, as we saw imposed by WHO dictum during the 2014 Ebola Panic[2]. The same is true of medical practice in “ordinary times”.
.
After the horrors of the Second World War, including the murder and abuse of millions with the complicity of the “health care” authorities of various warring parties, the international community developed conventions and declarations to the end that “Never Again!” would – or could – the health system or health professionals be used to harm either individuals or whole populations. Those prohibitions and protections remain binding today.
.
A key element in the international protections secured by the Allied Victory and subsequent codification of health-related international law was recognition that no person could be forced to accept any medical intervention that was contrary to conscience.
.
This has been international law for millennia, starting with the Hippocratic Oath in which doctors swore “I will take care that [my patients] suffer no hurt or damage” and
.
“Nor shall any man’s entreaty prevail upon me to administer poison to anyone…:[3]
.
Among the Post World War II protective codifications were the Universal Declaration of Rights, Geneva Declaration[4] and the Nuremberg Code which state, concerning the rights of all human beings, and the obligation for ethical action of health personnel:
.
- “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person… No one shall be subjected to … inhuman or degrading treatment… Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights… No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence…”[5]
. - “I WILL NOT USE my medical knowledge to violate human rights and civil liberties, even under threat…”[6]
.
- “The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved, as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision.”[7]
What, exactly, is Informed Consent?
.
“Informed consent is a process for getting permission before conducting a healthcare intervention on a person… In the United Kingdom and countries such as Malaysia and Singapore, informed consent in medical procedures requires proof as to the standard of care to expect as a recognized standard of acceptable professional practice (the Bolam Test), that is, what risks would a medical professional usually disclose in the circumstances (see Loss of right in English law). Arguably, this is “sufficient consent” rather than “informed consent.” … Medicine in the United States, Australia, and Canada take a more patient-centric approach to “informed consent.” Informed consent in these jurisdictions requires doctors to disclose significant risks, as well as risks of particular importance to that patient. This approach combines an objective (the reasonable patient) and subjective (this particular patient) approach.”[8]
.
Thus, depending on the jurisdiction, health care (or illness control) authorities may or may not be required to affirmatively seek Informed Consent. Where there is no clear duty to do so, the individual or guardian must assert the Right or it will be assumed or deemed to have been waived.
.
The essential importance of asserting the Right to preserve it is shown by the 2013 US Supreme Court case of Missouri vs McNeely, where the warrantless extraction of blood was ruled illegal as the defendant “refused to consent.” Had McNeely remained silent, the blood test would have been allowed.[9]
.
The Court opined,
.
“…diminished expectation of privacy does not diminish their privacy interest in preventing a government agent from piercing their skin. And though a blood test conducted in a medical setting by trained personnel is less intrusive than other bodily invasions, this Court has never retreated from its recognition that any compelled intrusion into the human body implicates significant, constitutionally protected privacy interests…” (page 15; emphasis added).
If the removal of blood “implicates significant, constitutionally protected privacy interests…” it is fair to assume that other invasive medical techniques including the introduction of vaccine toxins into the body that have been held to be “unavoidably unsafe”[10] will also give rise to such concerns.
.
The Constitution of the United States recognizes certain of the Rights held by people and delegates certain limited Powers to the government. In recent decades the Supreme Court has substituted pronouncements about “Interests” for the constitutional language regarding Rights vs Powers, often finding that the “interests” of the government outweigh the “interests” of the person, as though Inalienable Rights and political impositions could ever have equal status before the Law. Such verbal obscuration, while useful to statists to provide judicial cover for tyrannical impositions, has no place in any determination of fundamental human Rights which are never subordinate to the “necessities of state” and are never subject to weighing state-interests against individual Right.
.
However, without clear respect for those Rights, the judicial system and the administration of government will fail to protect the truly fundamental interests of civil society.
.
An earlier Supreme Court understood this, when in 1905 in Jacobson v Massachusetts, the Court declared the judicial power to extend to protecting people from forced vaccination.
.
While giving due deference to the State authorities, the Supreme Court reserved for the Federal Courts the right to intervene in matters where health and life may be at stake: “…if it be apparent or can be shown with reasonable certainty that he is not at the time a fit subject of vaccination or that vaccination, by reason of his then condition, would seriously impair his health or probably cause his death.” [Emphasis added.][11]
.
In a regime of verbal obscuration of fundamental Right, only the clear assertion of the Right will prevent degradation of the Right “by a thousand (bureaucratic) cuts…”
.
The question then becomes, “How is one to effectively assert the Right to Informed Consent, enshrined in International Humanitarian Law, for oneself and those over whom one has guardianship?”
.
The “AdvanceD Medical Directive” (AMD) may offer one avenue for asserting the Right.
.
“An advance health care directive, also known as living will, personal directive, advance directive, or advance decision, is a legal document in which a person specifies what actions should be taken for their health if they are no longer able to make decisions for themselves because of illness or incapacity. In the U.S. it has a legal status in itself, whereas in some countries it is legally persuasive without being a legal document.”[12]
.
By clearly providing that silence is not consent (assumed, deemed or implied) directly in the notarized advance medical director the individual makes a public declaration of intent.
.
“I do not give Informed Consent, actual, assumed, deemed, implied or otherwise, to any form of vaccination, whether by injection, ingestion, transdermal, inhalation or other means.”
.
The use of the AMD is not the only means by which one may assert the Right.
.
Natural Solutions Foundation seeks, and then shares, Natural Solutions to pressing health freedom issues. We consider meaningful Informed Consent to be the sine qua non of humane health care. Such meaningful response to Informed Consent requires that a definitive public record be made and formally noted.
.
Therefore, to permit individuals to make a public record that they have “denied consent or refused to consent” we have established a formal Petition on the FDA web site requesting that FDA adopt a clear Humane Law Informed Consent Regulation to protect the fundamental Right to Informed Consent, acknowledging Humane International Law.
.
As lawyer and freedom advocate M. Gandhi stated in 1903, “Vaccination is a barbarous practice, and it is one of the most fatal of all the delusions current in our time…”[13]
.
We invite concerned persons to go to [LINK – TBP] and register their support for the adoption of such a Regulation and to assert their personal Right by copying the “I do not give Informed Consent” phrase above and including it in your statement of support.
.
Copy of Petition and Link to Supporting Action here:
http://drrimatruthreports.com/?p=24415
.
Here is the language of the proposed Informed Consent Guide:
.
.
DRAFT INFORMED CONSENT REGULATION
.[A] Informed Consent
.Informed Consent may not be assumed, deemed, or implied. Informed Consent must be actual and individual and may be conveyed by a signed, notarized Advanced Medical Directive or any other verifiable written communication.
.
[1] Informed Consent may only be given by the individual involved, or his or her natural guardian[1] and no guardian may be appointed without full judicial process and only in cases of non-compos mentis[2]. A conscious individual is always deemed capable of making an Informed Consent decision so long as same is “without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion.” – http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/archive/nurcode.html
.
[2] Informed Consent may only be obtained after full Disclosure of All Risk memorialized with a written document signed by the consenting or non-consenting individual or natural guardian..
[3] Informed Consent may never be assumed, deemed or implied..
[4] The requirement for prior Informed Consent applies to all medical interventions, and.
[5] Informed Consent is subject to International Humanitarian Law: “The voluntary consent of the human… is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved, as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision.” – http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/archive/nurcode.html
.[B] Disclosure of All Risks
.1) Clinical evaluation of risks that evaluate both reactions to the vaccine`s or other interventional target (i.e. measles) and reactions to any latent pathogenic agents, contaminants or components (viruses, metals, foreign DNA, chemicals, excipients, cell fragments, drugs, adjuvants, bacteria, fungi) carried within the vaccine or other intervention should be within the fundamental definition of `risks`.
.
2) A public record of latent agents, both pathogenic and non-pathogenic) after screening for every known and sequenced virus, bacteria, fungus and parasite with a current all-encompassing microbial detection array, particulate and chemical profile of the proffered treatment or procedure substance or component(s) should be published for each batch of vaccine or other interventional material, device or substance.
.
3) Prohibition against use of mathematical models to determine or communicate risk to potential patients whose Informed Consent is being sought. Epidemiology, statistics, etc. should be eliminated in determination of risk since they are so easily manipulated to show desired, rather than actual, risk realities. For example, with regard to measles: Epidemiology studies only look for measles after measles immunization, not for contaminants from the VERO cells (African green monkey cell line) which may be carried by the vaccine. Another example: with regard to misleading (and under this proposal, prohibited) under-estimation of risk: polio vaccine caused encephalopathies from CMV contamination, but the risk factors were only based on the number of polio related lawsuits filed each year alleging polio caused by the vaccine.
.
4) Should any agent or clinical reaction not be publicly reported by manufacturer or CDC, the statute of limitations shall be tolled for filing vaccine claims against either manufacturer or FDA. Statute of limitations for claims arising prior to enactment shall be waived until three years after subsequent discovery. (i.e. SV-40 in cancers of both vaccine recipients and non-vaccine recipients).
.
5) Any and all government employees or manufacturer employees, and their superiors, determined to minimize vaccine or other intervention reactions shall be subject to personal liability. Any employee reporting vaccine or other intervention reactions, which have not been heretofore timely disclosed or which are disclosed in a timely fashion, shall be per se entitled to Whistleblower status.
.
[C] Rule of Interpretation and Implementation
.
This regulation shall be interpreted to afford the greatest scope for Informed Consent. This Regulation shall be referenced in all approved drug (including vaccine) package inserts.
[1] Natural parent: http://definitions.uslegal.com/n/natural-guardian/
.
If enough people demand respect for Informed Consent, government will have to acknowledge the obligations imposed by international humanitarian law.
.
There can hardly be a more fundamental or central freedom issue than whether agents of government can force one to receive a medical treatment. That the treatment in this case, vaccination, is not merely experimental and (sic) preventative but uninsurable and “unavoidably unsafe” gives greater emphasis to the unconscionable personal sacrifice the individual is mandated to make. Such a mandate is inconsistent with status as a free person, not a slave. No free society should tolerate any such imposition.
.
“Liberty is to the collective body what health is to every individual body. Without health no pleasure can be tasted by man; without liberty, no happiness can be enjoyed by society.” –Thomas Jefferson[16]
.
Ralph Fucetola JD
Legal Director
Natural Solutions Foundation
.
Ralph Fucetola JD practiced law from 1971 through 2006 and is a Notary Public. He is Legal Director of the Natural Solutions Foundation and President of the Institute for Health Research.
.
Our thanks to Rima Laibow, MD, Jim Turner, JD, Larry Becraft, JD and Walter Kyle, JD
.
[1] “qui tacet consentire videtur” – “Thus, silence gives consent.” Sometimes accompanied by the proviso “ubi loqui debuit ac potuit“, that is, “when he ought to have spoken and was able to”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_phrases_%28Q%29
.
[2] http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/statements/2014/ebola-ethical-review-summary/en/
.
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath
.
[4] The Geneva Conventions comprise four treaties, and three additional protocols, that establish the standards of international law for the humanitarian treatment of war. The singular term Geneva Convention usually denotes the agreements of 1949, negotiated in the aftermath of the Second World War (1939–45), which updated the terms of the first three treaties (1864, 1906, 1929), and added a fourth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions
.
[5] http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
.
[6] http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/g1/index.html
.
[7] http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/archive/nurcode.html
.
[8] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informed_consent
.
[9] http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-1425_cb8e.pdf
.
[10] See Justice Sotomayor’s 2011 dissent in Bruesewitz vs Wyeth, where she discusses the history of “unavoidably unsafe.” https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/09-152.ZD.html
.
[11] Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905)
.
[12] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advance_health_care_directive
.
[13] http://www.naturalnews.com/048804_Gandhi_vaccines_famous_quote.html#ixzz3ZxAv2VJS
.
[14] Natural parent: http://definitions.uslegal.com/n/natural-guardian/
.
[15] http://www.thefreedictionary.com/non+compos+mentis
.
[16] http://www.successwallpapers.com/wallpapers/0068-liberty.php
.
