Covid, consent and code of conduct

0

It’s a story I’ve heard way too many times. “There was no mention of any serious side effects other than the after your Covid vaccination record I was released. If only I had known.

What followed is the now all too familiar story of repeated ER presentations, doctor visits and an array of diagnoses including chest pain (cause unknown), pericarditis, myocarditis, Bell’s palsy, fibromyalgia, neuralgia and fatigue, just to name a few.

Months later, Patient X is still suffering from disabling symptoms and struggling to recover.

“If only I had known. These words come back to me. It is obvious that one of the fundamental requirements of good medical practice was omitted from the initial consultation, that of “informed consent”.

australian medicine Code of conduct, the Statutory Rules for Physicians, defines informed consent as “a person’s voluntary decision regarding medical care which is made with knowledge and understanding of the benefits and risks involved”.

Moreover, the australian vaccination manual states: “For consent to be legally valid…it must be given voluntarily in the absence of undue pressure, coercion or manipulation…and it may only be given after the potential risks and benefits of the vaccine concerned, the risks of not having it and any other options have been explained to the person.

Think back to the last time you consented to a medical procedure or, dare I say, a vaccination. Have you been guided through this process?

There is more. What happens to consent if you participate in a clinical trial?

former lawyer, Julien Gillespie, Explain :

“There is a part towards the end of the medical code of conduct, which … clearly states if you are a doctor and you are involved in a clinical or experimental trial … so there are all these other procedures and protocols it must be satisfied.

Surely that would only apply in the circumstances of an experimental trial, wouldn’t it?

We happen to have been doing that for a few years. “We heard it from the former Minister of Health, by Greg Hunt lips, and many more,” says Gillespie. “It is well recognized that these Covid vaccines have only been tentatively approved and are still in clinical trials.”

Julian Gillespie LLB, BJuris, is co-author, with Peter Fam LLB, of a recently published bombshell legal opinion cast doubt on the legal basis of AHPRA’s “gag order” of March 9, 2021.

The opinion was rendered with a letter indicating:

‘According to a joint statement received from AHPRA and national councils on March 9, 2021, Australian healthcare professionals… have been essentially prohibited from publicly questioning the science behind emerging Covid injectables, let alone questioning any message government urging Australians to get vaccinated, as these products were deemed “safe and effective”.

“The effect of this unilateral action…inserted AHPRA and the National Boards between clinician and patient, resulting in a serious failure of evidence-based information sharing by healthcare professionals with patients. …for the purpose of providing them with legally acceptable informed consent. to receive Covid injectables.

‘This failure of informed consent probably resulted in hundreds of thousands if not millions of Australians agreeing to the administration of Covid injectables, when they would not have so accepted or consented had they been given all the factual information available…including that they expose a receiver at a real and significant risk of death, injury or illness.

What does it mean?

Essentially, the legal opinion posits that it was illegal for AHPRA and the national councils to even produce the position statement. Health professionals have always been required to first observe their Codes of Conduct regardless of the various coercive and threatening statements made in the March statement.

But wait, there’s more.

It also appears that the public officials responsible for this statement are now legally exposed:

“As the harm to Covid vaccine victims was foreseeable, with respect to these remaining experimental gene therapies, these vaccine victims … may sue AHPRA’s public offices and national boards in their personal capacity,” said Gillespie.

It doesn’t stop there. There may be additional liability available to healthcare practitioners who administered vaccines in violation of their codes of conduct. Gillespie adds, “If these health care practitioners were then to be sued by their patients…then those health care practitioners may, in turn, be able to sue AHPRA public officials and national councils for coercing them. and threatened to ignore their codes of conduct. Such illegal action would constitute the offense of misconduct in the exercise of a public function.

I’ll let it all sink in.

The legal notice has been sent to all medical associations and colleges, almost 70 of them, to all Australian state, federal and territorial politicians, and to professional health insurers.

Oh, and it’s also been sent to over 300 of Australia’s top personal injury and medical negligence lawyers.

No one misses this one.

The legal opinion was usefully accompanied by a 107-page document report review evidence and adverse event data for Covid vaccines. It is an alarming reading.

But wait – there’s (still) more.

Proposed changes to National Health Practitioners Actdue to be debated in the Queensland Parliament on October 11, 2022, should give AHPRA even more power to interfere with the doctor/patient relationship.

These proposed changes are of great concern to medical organizations, including Royal Australian College of General Practitionersthe Australian Medical Associationthe Australian Medical Network (AMN), and the Australian Society of Health Professionals.

If passed, “doctors will no longer be able to speak their mind or use their experience, training and education if their opinion goes against what health bureaucrats say is in the best interest of the trust.” of the public in safety”, declares AMN.

And the changes won’t stop in Queensland. The amended national law will then be extended to other jurisdictions. All Aussies should be worried.

The Australian Medical Professional Society states: “Health regulation is not used to protect the public from legitimate professional misconduct, but is used to prevent medical professionals from routinely questioning government policy.”

If the legislation is passed, it raises the question: when a patient goes to their doctor, how will they know if they are receiving the doctor’s professional opinion? Where the latest government decree?

The March 9, 2021 joint position statement gave Australia a taste of what could happen if we do not stand up to this obscene imposition of regulators in the consulting room.

In the lyrics of ‘Doctor Frank Mercy‘ – an Australian doctor who writes under a pseudonym for fear of reprisals – ‘This is our Stalingrad. Defeat here will open the field to unlimited manpower for oppressive forces that can never be repelled. We must oppose it with all our determination.


Dr. Julie Sladden is a physician and freelance writer passionate about transparency in healthcare.

For more information, see Stop medical censorship campaign

*Patient ‘X’ is fictional and based on a collection of stories told over the past 18 months, which I have permission to share.

Do you have something to add ? Join the discussion and comment below.

Share.

About Author

Comments are closed.