A BRIEF FOR INFORMED CONSENT
Ralph Fucetola JD
Protected Against Diminishment Through
Legislative and Administrative Agency Denial
of Philosophical or Religious Conscientious
Objections to Mandated Vaccination.
This implements the general law as applied to the protection of human life, mandated, in the instance of vaccination, by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Jacobson vs Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
in Promoting FDA-Approved Vaccination Mandates
in Violation of Informed Consent.
There is no compelling government interest in controlling people associating together for the improvement of their well-being.
The North Carolina Supreme Court concluded, nearly a century ago in State v Biggs, supra., at p.405:
"Medicine is an experimental, not an exact science. All the law can do is to regulate and safeguard the use of powerful and dangerous remedies, like the knife and drugs, but it cannot forbid dispensing with them. When the Master, who was himself called the Good Physician, was told that other than his followers were casting out devils and curing diseases, he said, 'Forbid them not.'" (p.405).FDA approved drugs, including vaccines, remain in an experimental state, which the FDA calls “Phase 4” of the clinical trials system.
After the horrors of the Second World War, including the murder and abuse of millions with the complicity of the “health care” authorities of various warring parties, the international community developed conventions and declarations to the end that “Never Again!” would – or could - the health system or health professionals be used to harm either individuals or whole populations. Those prohibitions and protections remain binding today.
Among the Post World War II protective codifications were the Universal Declaration of Rights, Geneva Declarationand the Nuremberg Code which state, concerning the rights of all human beings and the obligation for ethical action by health personnel:
“Informed consent is a process for getting permission before conducting a healthcare intervention on a person… In the United Kingdom and countries such as Malaysia and Singapore, informed consent in medical procedures requires proof as to the standard of care to expect as a recognized standard of acceptable professional practice (the Bolam Test), that is, what risks would a medical professional usually disclose in the circumstances (see Loss of Right in English law). Arguably, this is “sufficient consent” rather than “informed consent.” … Medicine in the United States, Australia, and Canada take a more patient-centric approach to ‘informed consent.’ Informed consent in these jurisdictions requires doctors to disclose significant risks, as well as risks of particular importance to that patient. This approach combines an objective (the reasonable patient) and subjective (this particular patient) approach.”
“…diminished expectation of privacy does not diminish their privacy interest in preventing a government agent from piercing their skin. And though a blood test conducted in a medical setting by trained personnel is less intrusive than other bodily invasions, this Court has never retreated from its recognition that any compelled intrusion into the human body implicates significant, constitutionally protected privacy interests…” (page 15; emphasis added).
on the Constitutionally Protected
Right to Informed Consent
“In practical operation, therefore, this procedural device must necessarily produce a result the State could not command directly. It can only result in a deterrence of speech which the Constitution makes free.”
“…this court has made it clear that even though a person has no ‘right’ to a valuable governmental benefit and even though the government may deny him the benefit for any number of reasons, there are some reasons upon which the government may not rely. It may not deny a benefit to a person on a basis that infringes his constitutionally protected interests – especially, his interest in freedom of speech. For if the government could deny a benefit to a person because of his constitutionally protected speech or associations, his exercise of those freedoms would in effect be penalized and inhibited. This would allow the government to “produce a result which (it) could not command directly.”
No free society can tolerate any such imposition.