If you can see this post copy and paste it. I'm severely monitored and blocked!
I want us all to put together a lawsuit. Coercion, misinforming using experimental treatments. From the Canadian government right down to doctors and employers. Any lawyers in this feed?
https://www.cmpa-acpm.ca/en/ad....vice-publications/ha
Our courts have reaffirmed repeatedly a patient's right to refuse treatment even when it is clear treatment is necessary to preserve the life or health of the patient. Physicians must at the same time explain the consequences of the refusal without creating a perception of coercion in seeking consent.
The patient must have been given an adequate explanation about the nature of the proposed investigation or treatment and its anticipated outcome as well as the significant risks involved and alternatives available.
The obligation to obtain informed consent must always rest with the physician who is to carry out the treatment or investigative procedure.
Thus the particular circumstances of the patient are an important determinant of materiality.
It is clear that the materiality of a risk is influenced as well both by the frequency of the possible risk and also by its seriousness should it occur. Generally speaking, the more frequent the risk, the greater the obligation to discuss it beforehand. Further, even uncommon risks of great potential seriousness should be disclosed. In this context the Supreme Court of Canada indicated that even if a risk is "a mere possibility" yet it carries with it serious consequences such as paralysis or death, it should be regarded as material and therefore requires disclosure.
The bottom line:
The adequacy of consent explanations is judged by the "reasonable patient" standard, or what a reasonable patient in the particular patient's position would have expected to hear before consenting.
Recent legal judgments repeatedly refer to the need to disclose "material" risks to patients. Generally speaking, the more frequent the risk, the greater the obligation to discuss it beforehand. Further, even uncommon risks of great potential seriousness should be disclosed
When it comes to research and experimentation, a fair explanation must be given about what is proposed, its risks and discomforts, what if any benefits might accrue and, if applicable, what appropriate alternative treatments or procedures might be offered. If a blind study is involved, patients must be aware they could stand to derive no benefit at all.
"The right to determine what shall, or shall not, be done with one's own body, and to be free from non-consensual medical treatment, is a right deeply rooted in our common law. This right underlines the doctrine of informed consent. With very limited exceptions, every person's body is considered inviolate, and, accordingly, every competent adult has the right to be free from unwanted medical treatment. The fact that serious risks or consequences may result from a refusal of medical treatment does not vitiate the right of medical self-determination. The doctrine of informed consent ensures the freedom of individuals to make choices about their medical care. It is the patient, not the physician, who ultimately must decide if treatment — any treatment — is to be administered."
The physician should disclose to the patient the nature of the proposed treatment, its gravity, any material risks and any special risks relating to the specific treatment in question. Even if a risk is a mere possibility which ordinarily might not be disclosed, if its occurrence carries serious consequences, as for example paralysis or death, it must be regarded as a material risk requiring disclosure.
