By Peter W. Dunn, PhD
There is in Canada and in much of the rest of the world a move to implement vaccine passports so that people have an easy way to prove that they are fully vaccinated. And this will facilitate these people’s access to public venues, including stores, theatres, sporting events, public transit, hospitals, doctor’s and dentist’s offices, and travel to other countries. This is an international move to restrict access by those who have not been vaccinated. So in essence, it is creating an Apartheid system whereby one group of people have more access to amenities than another group. It would result in a two-tiered society.
But the politicians who have promoted such plans have played into the hands of the big pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer and Astra-Zenica. One wonders what they owe them. Did these companies make substantial contributions to their political campaigns. Are there promises of paid speeches to Macron or Trudeau once they leave office? Have there been threats to ruin them if they don’t play along with this international medical cabal? It makes one wonder, because in all of this, these people promoting vaccine passports have acted very stupid and ignorant about bioethics, in particular the principle of patient autonomy especially as it relates to informed consent. I wonder if anyone has ever heard Justin Trudeau speak about patient autonomy? Or for that matter, has your physician talked with you about your patient rights for more than a few seconds? Are they even allowed to do that in Canada anymore?
So I’ve done a small amount of reading on patient autonomy and I have grave concerns about what is going on with the COVID 19 vaccination program and the plans of world leaders to implement vaccine passports (emphasis mine). This is what Unesco’s Universal Declaration of Bioethics and Human Rights says about consent:
Article 6 – Consent
1. Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice.
First, we learn that any preventative or diagnostic or therapy is covered under the concept of informed consent. Preventatives include mandatory masks. No one has obtained informed consent to mask me, and so I don’t wear one. Diagnostic include COVID 19 tests. That would also be subject to informed consent, but forcing people to get these tests is common. Vaccines are both preventatives and medical interventions, intended to manipulate a person’s immune system to give them stronger immune protection from infection. Secondly, we learn that consent must be freely given—and withdrawal of consent must be without disadvantage or prejudice. This is where the violations of informed consent are happening.
Violations are happening by restricting, on the basis of one’s vaccine status, one’s place in a school or a job, or one’s access to venues or to travel. Justin Trudeau announced that tourists who want to come to Canada must be fully vaccinated, and that includes your relatives if they are not citizens or permanent residents of Canada. But I’ve not heard Justin Trudeau or Doug Ford or Joe Biden or Emmanuel Macro even mention the term “informed consent” or “patient autonomy”. But you can still go to the websites of the Canadian provincial colleges of physicians to read about how doctors are legally required to obtain informed consent. For example, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario requires that consent must not be coerced, and if a physician sees that coercion is involved, then they have failed to receive informed consent:
For consent to be valid, physicians must ensure that it …
Is given voluntarily and not under duress.
If physicians believe that consent is not being freely given, they must ensure that there has been no coercion.
Is not obtained through misrepresentation or fraud.
Physicians must be frank and honest when interacting with patients, including when conveying information about the proposed treatment.
According to this page, if Ontario physicians treat patients without legally obtaining informed consent, they are breaking the law (Ontario Health Consent Act). But in Ontario, since May 20th, when Doug Ford tied going back to school and the end of lockdowns with vaccination rates, he has literally been bribing us with our own freedom to get vaccinated. Therefore, none of the dispensers of vaccines in the province of Ontario have legally obtained informed consent, because all of us, without exception, are being coerced into this vaccine and are thus under duress. And all of the MDs in Ontario know this to be the case.
Moreover, instead of allowing physicians of conscience to discuss the potential dangers of the vaccines and the lack of pressing need to get them if you are a younger person, or to discuss alternate treatments such as HCQ, Invermectin or vitamin D, the colleges of physicians in this country are using censorship and threat of excommunication, such as in the case of Dr. Patrick Philips. Arguably, this is misrepresentation. The suppression of information about alternative treatments is fraud and it is illegal to do that. And thus, it is also illegal for physicians to vaccinate you when they know that the necessity of the vaccines has been misrepresented.
It is also a clear violation of the law, since there has to be free and open discussion if informed consent can happen. That should be one of the most obvious points of all. The media is presenting these vaccines with such rosy pictures of safety and effectiveness, that no one is getting informed. No one can give informed consent without fuller appreciation that there are two sides to this story. And one side of the story is the thousands of people, even young people, who have died after receiving these shots. But the media and so-called experts misrepresent these deaths as not caused by the vaccine invoking post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, when investigations about cause of death often takes months to occur and thousands of death investigations could not have even possibly taken place.
Finally, I would like also to discuss the basis of the bioethical principle of patient autonomy. It is arguably based upon the Torah command, “Thou shalt not kill.” This is a universal principle of ethics and law, that a person has a right to live and not have their life taken from them by another. Another commandment of Torah is “Thou shalt not steal.” Arguably, taking a person’s life is also stealing. In the film Unforgiven, the murder Bill Muny (played by Clint Eastwood) says, “It’s a helluva of a thing, killin’ a man. You take away everything he’s got and everything he’s ever gonna have.” Laws and bioethical principles on informed consent are there to prevent physicians and medical scientists from taking serious risks with patients in both treatments and experiments. The reason for this is that if their intervention, preventative or diagnostic kills you, and you haven’t given your consent, or they or someone else has misrepresented the dangers of the intervention, then they are liable, not just before the law but before God himself. I.e., they are just mortals like the rest of it. The doctors didn’t give us life and they can’t give it back to us if they kill us. In the Lord of the Rings, Frodo says it’s a pity that Bilbo didn’t kill Gollum when he had a chance, and Gandalf responds, “Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement.”
The doctors aren’t gods. They can’t bring us back after they’ve killed us. And thus, laws and bioethics are there to restrain their arrogance and to prevent them from harming us. But now with COVID 19, everyone has thrown out informed consent. Oh, they do lip service to it, by giving up to 30 seconds to sign a consent form, but it isn’t possible to have informed consent:
Because the vaccines are being forced on us and we are under duress and coercion.
Because the information about these vaccines is being censored and therefore misrepresented.
This speech was delivered at the corner of Bathurst and Clark at the Vaughan freedom protest on July 25, 2021
Pingback: Anti-Vaxxer Myths are Hate Speech | The Righteous Investor
Pingback: COVID 19 vaccines and informed consent: No Means No! | The Righteous Investor
Pingback: Why it is Christian to reject Vaccine Passports | The Righteous Investor
Thank You for the info on this subject, I will not be forced into any of their fear mongering ways nor be another test subject for their vaccines. This is sickening to even witness all those who were forced into or lied to about taking this life altering vaccine. Again thank You