Informed Consent

Informed Consent is the cornerstone of moral and ethical medical practice. In order to have “informed consent” one must have full access to complete and accurate information, and have the ability to decline, without penalty.

The withholding of information on the MMR is just one example of the truth and transparency failure of–just one–of our government agencies, the FDA. If we are not informed we cannot give “informed consent.”

Informed Consent has been established internationally as a guiding principle of medicine and a foundational human right, in numerous documents.

AMA guidelines on ethics and informed consent state that, “Informed consent to medical treatment is fundamental in both ethics and law. Patients have the right to receive information and ask questions about recommended treatments so that they can make well-considered decisions about care. Successful communication in the patient-physician relationship fosters trust and supports shared decision making.”

Statement against federal mandates from the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.

The Hippocratic Oath describes an ethical doctor-patient relationship, saying “I will use treatment to help the sick according to my ability and judgment, but never with a view to injury and wrong-doing.”

The Nuremburg Code states that “voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.”

The Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights says that “Human dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms are to be fully respected”, “The autonomy of persons to make decisions, while taking responsibility for those decisions and respecting the autonomy of others, is to be respected.”, and, “Any preventive, 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 International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects from the World Health Organization again confirms that voluntary consent must be obtained.

The Declaration of Independence lists three basic unalienable human rights as “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”

The Constitution of the United States of America guarantees freedom of religion, security of persons, and protections against excessive punishment. Mandates result in penalties that effectively become an act of coercion, forcing citizens to bypass informed consent for job and education security.

And, most state constitutions contain language protecting the right of individuals to choose.

In order to justify vaccination mandates, in light of the ethics of informed consent, we would have to accept, as proven fact, a host of unproven theories and propaganda. For example, we must believe:

that vaccine-induced herd immunity is a proven fact;
that all vaccines work in the same manner, with the same efficacy; are guaranteed to produce immunity; and that high antibody titers are an accurate indication of immunity;
that the risk to benefit profiles for each vaccine have been adequately researched, and the factors remain the same for all people;
that vaccines are safe and effective for all–and we have to deny the facts that vaccines can, and do, cause temporary, permanent, and chronic damage, and even death;
that our adverse event reporting system is accurate (even though it is not considered to be an accurate measure and that only 1-10% of injuries are reported);
that it is right to mandate harm to some in the name of a “greater good,” and at the expense of a permanent loss of our constitutional rights, bodily autonomy, and future control over any medical decisions;
that our government always has what is best in mind for its citizens;
that all safety and monitoring of vaccines are conducted properly;
that the unvaccinated are unhealthy, a constant health risk and that the vaccinated do not spread disease;
that the science is settled, that open debate, peer review, and asking questions are unnecessary procedure for the production of robust science;
that there is no room for improvement with regards to vaccine technology.

The ethics of informed consent raise serious questions about the appropriateness of mandating a universal one-size-fits-all program of medical intervention from the day of birth until the day a person dies.

For further information, please see the following articles and papers written by doctors, lawyers, parents, and scientists–both those who advocate for vaccination and those who do not, but ALL pro-scientific integrity and informed consent.

Anti-Mandate not Anti-Vaccine

The Danger of Eliminating Vaccine Exemptions & Curtailing Vaccine Criticism

The Moral Right to Conscientious, Philosophical and Personal Belief Exemption to Vaccination

Vaccines, What about Immunocompromised School Children?

The Denial of Adverse Event Risk Following Immunization and the Loss of Informed Consent

Are Doctors Giving Patients Up-to-Date Vaccine Safety Information?

Herd Immunity and Compulsory Vaccination: Does the Theory Justify the Law?

Compulsory Vaccination, The Constitution, and the Hepatitis B Mandate for Infants and Young Children

The Unofficial Vaccine Educators: are CDC funded non-profits sufficiently independent?

Science, Public Health Policy & the Law: Convergence

Political vs. Scientific Basis of Vaccine Safety Claims: Knowledge vs. Belief

Unintended Consequences of Mass Vaccination