“Informed consent is meaningless without the right to say: “No!”. – Rima E. Laibow, MD

“Informed consent is meaningless without the right to say: “No!”. – Rima E. Laibow, MD
After the horrors of the Second World War which included 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 the health system be used to harm either individuals or whole populations.
Among these were the Universal Declaration of Rights, Geneva Declaration and the Nuremberg Code.
“Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person… No one shall be subjected to … inhuman or degrading treatment… Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights… No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence…” –
“I WILL NOT USE my medical knowledge to violate human rights and civil liberties, even under threat…”
“The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved, as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision.” –
Informed consent may be defined:
“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 recognised 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-centeric 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.” –

THE NUREMBERG CODE
1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.
This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be
so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element
of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and
should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter
involved, as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter
element requires that, before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental
subject, there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment;
the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably
to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person, which may possibly come from his
participation in the experiment.
The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each
individual who initiates, directs or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and
responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity

Ethical Codes & Research Standards

N.Y. Law Professor Addresses U.N. on Government Vaccine Policies Violating the Nuremberg Code

Professor Holland states:

[T]he UN and the international community have obligations to respect human rights related to vaccination.

Since World War II, the international community has recognized the grave dangers in involuntary scientific and medical experimentation on human subjects.  In the aftermath of Nazi medical atrocities, the world affirmed the Nuremberg Code which stated that the “voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.” The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights further enshrined this prohibition against involuntary experimentation in its 1966 text, stating “no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.” Such a prohibition is now so universally recognized that some courts and scholars have pronounced the right to informed consent in experiments as a matter of customary international law.

Watch Professor Holland’s entire 16 minute presentation to the United Nations, in which she received several ovations from the audience.

– See more at: http://vaccineimpact.com/2016/n-y-law-professor-addresses-u-n-on-government-vaccine-policies-violating-the-nuremberg-code/#sthash.AW5GGvAC.dpuf

See more at: http://vaccineimpact.com/2016/n-y-law-professor-addresses-u-n-on-government-vaccine-policies-violating-the-nuremberg-code/#sthash.AW5GGvAC.dpuf