A Perspective from Canadian Medical Law

[Guest guest]

Previously posted.........from Edda West, Canada's VRAN

Dear list,

I just want to offer a perspective from Canadian Medical Law on this

question of devising a clear goal, or mission statement for this group

within the parameters of " Informed Choice " , " expanded exemption freedoms " ,

" the right to refuse vaccines " , abolition of compulsory vaccination " , etc.

In Canada, although there is no legislated Act that protects individuals

from forced medical procedures, there is clear case law pertaining to the

individual's right to informed consent involving medical procedures that

carry risks of injury or death, and is well explained in a text written for

doctors & medical professionals, entitled Canadian Medical Law.

This book explains the foundation legal principles behind the concept of

" Informed Consent " , and how this is derived from legal cases that have been

won according to these principles in this country and which grant " Every

individual the right to information on material risks and the fundamental

right of persons to be free from unwanted physical interference. Medical

care is wrongful and a " battery " unless the patient has given consent to

it............and furthermore, the patient must understand the risks and be

willing to submit to a medical treatment for there to be express consent. "

I think the principle we are wrestling with here is the individual's

inalienable right to be free from unwanted physical interference. When a

medical procedure like vaccination is forced on a person against their

will, or without their full knowledge of all the risks, it becomes a

" battery " as in " assault & battery " .

These principles are well understood in medical & legal circles, and

constitute the boundary which defines the parameters of the individual's

rights. It would be interesting to know if these kinds of parameters are

also set out in the U.S. - does anyone know if there are texts which define

American Medical Law? And if so, is the baseline medical ethic of Informed

Consent also backed up with similar legal principles granting freedom from

unwanted physical interference, and expressly stating that medical

procedures forced on a person against their will or without full knowlege

of risks becomes a " battery " ? If your Medical/Legal parameters are

similar, then I think it would be crucial to incorporate these simple

phrases because they set out the absolute boundary beyond which no one can

step to force any medical procedure against anyone's will.

An interesting recent case upheld in a British Columbia court involved a

child who was injected with hepatitis B vaccine against her will and

without her parents' consent. The court upheld the principle that the

child had been denied her right to informed consent and that the health

nurse had committed a " battery " against the child, and was duly fined and

reprimanded. This was an important case in Canada, because it tested the

case law principles, and affirmed these protective boundaries.

I haven't had a chance to read all the posts in recent weeks, so am not

sure if everyone has seen Ted Koren's action re: medical freedom but am

wondering if this group had considered joining forces with Ted Koren and

his court challenge re: " The Foundation for Health Choice has filed an

amicus brief in 8th circuit Federal Court of Appeals challenging the

Constitutionality of mandatory vaccinations. This is an historic document

that has the potential to declare all state laws that mandate vaccinations

unconstitutional. " www.foundationforhealthchoice.com

I do appreciate everyone's input to this list - wonderful all the knowledge

that is being shared.

Edda West

VRAN - Vaccination Risk Awareness Network (Canada)

info@...

www.vran.org