For consent to treatment to be considered valid, it must be an "informed" 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 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 underlies 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 doctor, who ultimately must decide if treatment -- any treatment -- is to be administered.
The Supreme Court ruled that any specific right contained in an international document or instrument is read as a minimal protection under section 7 of the charter. Therefore the rights and protections contained in The Nuremburg Code and The Helsinki Declaration are protected under and addition to section 7 of the charter.
And finally, despite all of that said, I sadly agree with you that the majority of Canadian judges still will not rule against this blatant disregard for our constitution and basic civil liberties.
Thanks. It will be an evidentiary issue. Bottom line is I think judges will hear evidence from doctors that the vaccine is fine and tested and approved and will thus say there is no basis to claim consent is not adequate. Any doctor that challenges the prevailing official view will be deemed not credible. It all goes back to how the judges will rule.
Imposed by valid regulation.
Informed Consent
Fleming v. Reid, 1991 (Ontario)
R. v. Hape
The Supreme Court ruled that any specific right contained in an international document or instrument is read as a minimal protection under section 7 of the charter. Therefore the rights and protections contained in The Nuremburg Code and The Helsinki Declaration are protected under and addition to section 7 of the charter.
And finally, despite all of that said, I sadly agree with you that the majority of Canadian judges still will not rule against this blatant disregard for our constitution and basic civil liberties.
Thanks. It will be an evidentiary issue. Bottom line is I think judges will hear evidence from doctors that the vaccine is fine and tested and approved and will thus say there is no basis to claim consent is not adequate. Any doctor that challenges the prevailing official view will be deemed not credible. It all goes back to how the judges will rule.