If you are like many, and quite possibly the large majority of Canadians, you have probably wondered how it is that constitutional and informed consent rights can be easily brushed aside in favour of a liability free pharmaceutical injection mandate.
The right to make informed decisions for yourself is echoed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms with sections 7 and 15 often quoted in legal actions that address the government’s Covid measures, including the mandates. Further, provincial legislation governs the requirement to obtain informed consent for medical procedures.
As just one example of provincial legislation, the Health Care Consent Act of Ontario clearly defines the requirements of consent for all procedures. Here are some highlights from the legislation:
No treatment without consent
10 (1) A health practitioner who proposes a treatment for a person shall not administer the treatment, and shall take reasonable steps to ensure that it is not administered, unless,
(a) he or she is of the opinion that the person is capable with respect to the treatment, and the person has given consent; or
(b) he or she is of the opinion that the person is incapable with respect to the treatment, and the person’s substitute decision-maker has given consent on the person’s behalf in accordance with this Act. 1996, c. 2, Sched. A, s. 10 (1).
Elements of consent
1. The consent must relate to the treatment.
2. The consent must be informed.
3. The consent must be given voluntarily.
4. The consent must not be obtained through misrepresentation or fraud. 1996, c. 2, Sched. A, s. 11 (1).
Informed consent
(2) A consent to treatment is informed if, before giving it,
(a) the person received the information about the matters set out in subsection (3) that a reasonable person in the same circumstances would require in order to make a decision about the treatment; and
(b) the person received responses to his or her requests for additional information about those matters. 1996, c. 2, Sched. A, s. 11 (2).
Same
(3) The matters referred to in subsection (2) are:
1. The nature of the treatment.
2. The expected benefits of the treatment.
3. The material risks of the treatment.
4. The material side effects of the treatment.
5. Alternative courses of action.
6. The likely consequences of not having the treatment. 1996, c. 2, Sched. A, s. 11 (3).
We can also refer to other important documents such as the Nuremberg Code that opens with “The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.”
The UNESCO declaration on Bioethics, to which Canada is a signatory, states:
Article 3 – Human dignity and human rights
1. Human dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms are to be fully respected.
2. The interests and welfare of the individual should have priority over the sole interest of science of society.
Article 6 – Consent
1. Any preventative, 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.
It would seem that the matter of the requirement of free, informed consent is well protected in our legislation and statues. It is so much so, that the Canadian National Report on Immunization 1996, made a very clear statement (emphasis ours):
“Unlike some countries, immunization (vaccination) is not mandatory in Canada; it cannot be mandatory because of the Canadian Constitution. Only three provinces have legislation or regulations under their health-protection acts to require proof of immunization for school entrance. Ontario and New Brunswick require proof for diphtheria, tetanus, polio, measles, mumps and rubella immunization. In Manitoba, only measles vaccination is covered. It must be emphasized that, in these three provinces, exceptions are permitted for medical or religious grounds and reasons of conscience; legislations and regulations must not be interpreted to imply compulsory immunization (vaccination).”
The addition of (vaccination) after the words immunization is ours as they are referring to the process of vaccination. They are not referring to immune status.
Is it really any wonder that there are so many law suits underway right now with respect to the Covid jab mandates?
Doesn’t matter. The judiciary doesn’t seem to care.
Lawlessness and unethical coercion is running amok.
We’re at the point where lawsuits are being dismissed without litigants getting a chance to present their evidence and damages for being ‘moot’ as we’ve seen with the Peckford et al. lawsuit.
Canada is moot.
ORWELL AND THE MINISTRY OF THOUGHT… IRONICALLY THE SOUND OF SILENCE AND THE OTHER SIDE EFFECTS ON THE POPULATION CAUSED BY A TYRANT TRUDEAU’S MINORITY GOVERNMENT OF MIND CONTROL AND MANAGEMENT SKILLS THAT ARE TIED TO THE WEF, BLACK ROCK, W.H.O. THE BIG PHARMA INDUSTRY AND U.N. NATO….WOKE LIBERAL LIAR’S CLUB…ALL OF THE GUILTY INVOLVEMENT IN THIS PLANNING AND ARCHITECTURE OF A FINAL SOLUTION NARRATIVE LIKE THE NAZIS REGIME MUST BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR ATROCITIES COMMITTED BY THE PLAYERS THAT HAVE BEEN WORKING ON IT… HANGING THEM LIKE THE NUREMBERG TRIAL COURT FOUND THAT THE FEW NAZI MEMBERS AND THEIR FAMILIES WITH TIES TO THESE CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY WERE NOT REPENTED TO THE MILLIONS OF PEOPLE WHO ARE DEAD…. THAT THEY KILLED, MURDERED BY A FALSE NARRATIVE MUCH LIKE THIS RECENT SARS 2COVID SCARE TACTIC…SEX, LIES AND VIDEOTAPE…