Informed consent has been, and still is, a fundamental requirement to allow medical interventions to happen, for individuals to allow themselves to be subjected to medication, surgery, or other interventionist practices. The circumstances are often ones that are subject to balance. On the one hand, there exists a threat to the individual from an illness or malfunction of some kind, and in the case of preventative processes such as vaccination, the likelihood of some future illness occurring, and on the other hand, the risks associated with the proposed treatment.

All medical interventions come with risks, whether that be surgery or medication or vaccination, or any other measure of intervention. The risks are determined and assessed based on the history of the treatment, and we usually trust that it is accurate. For example, a particular surgical procedure might have a 1% risk of mortality, based on the fact that in every 100 operations of that type, one person dies, and that is balanced against the likelihood of death were no intervention to take place, of say 50%. Most patients faced with that decision would choose the intervention because the balance of probabilities lies clearly on the side of surgery.

In cases where the intervention is new, the patient is also informed of that. There may be no history, but even limited evidence of likely risks still counts as informed consent.

In the above example, whatever happens is lawful and moral because the patient has the final say; it is their decision. That’s how it has been, and that’s the conclusion of the Nuremberg Code, section 6, articles 1 and 3. However, not only is informed consent a moral and humanitarian necessity but dispensing with it may also have criminal ramifications. In the same way that the experimenters of Nazi Germany were criminals and murderers, so might also be the nurses, doctors, scientists, and politicians, who compel or coerce people to suffer forced vaccination.

Imagine a gunman with an automatic weapon entering a crowded shopping mall and firing at will in all directions. He knows that some people are very likely to be killed by this action, but it isn’t necessary for him to know who they are. He doesn’t need to know them personally and it isn’t necessary for him to know which of the several hundred people there were killed. He is a murderer, possibly a terrorist. Even if only one person is killed, he is still a murderer. He cannot argue that he had no specific intention to kill the person who died, therefore it isn’t murder, because he knew his actions would result in death, whomever it happened to be.

Now, we narrow the argument down to vaccination.

Most vaccinations have caused injury to some people, both types of the current Coronavirus vaccines (mRNA and the slightly different AstraZeneca one) have also had their problems. As we stand, it is not at all clear that informed consent is properly conducted anyway, regarding vaccination, and were that to be investigated, a significant tightening of requirements for informed consent would most likely be the result.

Getting accurate information about vaccine injury is an extremely difficult task, because nobody in power wants to know. Processes for people to report such injury are hidden from view, not publicised and the procedure made as complicated as possible. It is not in the vested interests of those in control to declare the vaccine anything other than an unqualified success. It’s not part of the script to encourage anything that might dent the message they would like everyone to unquestioningly support.

However, it is clear, and becoming clearer by the day that some people are injured by these vaccines and some are killed by them. There is an existing mechanism to determine and confirm causation that the vaccine injury compensation organisations in both the UK and the US use to pay compensation. Over the years, huge sums of money have been paid out in compensation for vaccine injury, so it is a reality.

It is also a reality, and will be proven so in the future, even if it isn’t accepted now, that some people will be injured, and some will die as a direct result of the Coronavirus vaccines.

These numbers may be small in comparison to the numbers of people vaccinated or they may grow substantially if people knew how to report them. However, for the purposes of the potential lawful ramifications, it is only necessary that one person is killed by the vaccine for it to become a known risk factor of that vaccine.

Under the accepted rules of informed consent, this would be a part of the information conveyed to the potential recipient. The patient would then make a judgement based upon their understanding of the likelihood of contracting Corona Virus and its likely effect upon them, against the declared and known risks of taking the vaccination. This is how informed consent works. It doesn’t matter that there is a deluge of propaganda about the vaccine and billions of dollars pumped into all the influential organisations to make it happen, as long as the final decision remains with the individual themselves.

If I return, for a moment to our gunman in the shopping mall, asking the assembled if they wouldn’t mind him spraying bullets everywhere. After all, only a few will be killed, and it probably wouldn’t be you. Ludicrous, of course, because there is no downside to not being shot at, but close enough to make the point.

Now let’s remove, not only the informed bit, as that’s already gone, but consent.

Any form of coercion makes the vaccine mandatory. It doesn’t really matter whether they force the needle into your arm under restraint, or deny you fundamental freedoms, the net moral result is the removal of choice, the removal of consent. For some, being barred from flying, going on holiday, would be devastating, but of no interest to those who don’t do that. For others being barred from the bingo hall, or the local shop would have the same effect.

We now have a set of circumstances whereby a government and the entire organisation down to the nurse or doctor administering the vaccine are deliberately forcing an action onto people when they know that such action will kill someone. In the same way that the gunman’s actions would kill someone, but he didn’t know who, the government’s actions will kill someone also, and they don’t know who it will be either. As the gunman’s actions are murder so are the government’s.

So, who gets charged first?

Take an example where my father took the vaccine against his wishes and dies as a result of it. Do the police initially prosecute the person who gave my father the vaccine? Why not? The excuse of ‘I was only following orders’ has failed in the past, so there is no reason to suggest it would succeed now. How about the doctor in charge, the driver who delivered the vaccines, the MP who voted for it, the Prime Minister who pushed it, the airline that disbarred the non-vaccinated? They have all committed murder, or have conspired to commit murder, and it has been long established in English law that ignorance is no excuse.

If compulsion were to happen, the only possible way of avoiding these murder charges would be to extend the highly immoral immunity granted to the manufacturers to every person or conspirator involved in the coercive actions or the interventionist actions and we would then have a society who could kill people with complete freedom.

Informed consent is too precious to throw away for short term convenience. We must take great care.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email