VERY interesting information on what informed consent really means in 2022 – in a legal context.
Most think it’s ok for a doctor or another medic to merely invite you to have a cursory glance at a leaflet listing some information about the Covid vaccine.
Naturally if you’ve already made your way to the vaccination centre, they know very few are going to read it.
After all, how many of us – me included – bother to read information about prescribed drugs listing the side effects? (aka fellow effects).
As this article tell us, informed consent has taken on a new broader meaning since the Montgomery ruling in 2015.
No longer can doctors hide behind their own regulatory bodies – very often linked with Big Pharma – claim the product is safe and be legally covered.
They must now: warn of ‘all material risks to which a reasonable person in the patient’s position would attach significance’.
This needs to be tested in court and, once it is, could open the floodgates.
For example, a patient suffering heart complications as a result of the (non) vaccine could point straightaway to much now widely available information – not least Pfizer’s seven pages full of side effects they noticed in the first few weeks alone.
Instead of accepting the £120,000 pay off, they need to sue the NHS and blow this scandal wide open.
I wrote a couple of years ago that ‘no win, no fee’ solicitors would soon be having a field day due to the jab.
Yes, Big Pharma managed to stitch together an agreement with the Government that they couldn’t be sued for adverse events and deaths.
But the jab must be administered with ‘informed consent’ and it’s clear this isn’t the case.
Would any ‘reasonable’ person reading Pfizer’s documents agree to a procedure for a condition they don’t currently have and which neither prevents them from getting it or passing it on?
The tide is turning…
Brinders wake up blog 