Originally Posted by
Contumacious
The US Code, the Helsinki Agreement and the Nuremburg Code protect citizens from forced vaccination by codifying the right to consent to or refuse vaccination when experimental vaccines like COVID-19 are being employed. The public won’t be informed of these legal protections.
"At common law, even the touching of one person by another without consent and without legal justification was a battery. See W. Keeton, D. Dobbs, R. Keeton, & D. Owen, Prosser and Keeton on Law of Torts § 9, pp. 39-42 (5th ed. 1984). Before the turn of the century, this Court observed that "[n]o right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law, than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law." Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891). This notion of bodily integrity has been embodied in the requirement that informed consent is generally required for medical treatment. Justice Cardozo, while on the Court of Appeals of New York, aptly described this doctrine: "Every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body; and a surgeon who performs an operation without his patient's consent commits an assault, for which he is liable in damages." Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital, 211 N. Y. 125, 129-130, 105 N. E. 92, 93 (1914). The informed consent doctrine has become firmly entrenched in American tort law. See Keeton, Dobbs, Keeton, & Owen, supra, § 32, pp. 189-192; F. Rozovsky, Consent to Treatment, A Practical Guide 1-98 (2d ed. 1990). The logical corollary of the doctrine of informed consent is that the patient generally possesses the right not to consent, that is, to refuse treatment. Until about 15 years ago and the seminal decision in In re Quinlan, 70 N. J. 10, 355 A. 2d 647, cert. denied sub nom. Garger v. New Jersey, 429 U.S. 922 (1976), the number of right-to-refuse-treatment decisions was relatively few.*fn2 Most of the earlier cases involved patients who refused medical treatment forbidden by their religious beliefs, thus implicating First Amendment rights as well as common-law rights of self-determination.*fn3 More recently, however, with the advance of medical technology capable of sustaining life well past the point where natural forces would have brought certain death in earlier times, cases involving the right to refuse life-sustaining treatment have burgeoned. See 760 S. W. 2d, at 412, n. 4 (collecting 54 reported decisions from 1976 through 1988)."
CRUZAN, BY HER PARENTS AND CO-GUARDIANS, CRUZAN ET UX
v.
DIRECTOR, MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ET AL.
110 S. Ct. 2841, 497 U.S. 261 (U.S. 06/25/1990)
Most Americans know NOTHING about covid19 nor about an mRNA vaccine that took less than 9 months to prepare.
Do not believe the gargantuan hype and propaganda being perpetrated by the Fake News Media aka The SEE BS Network and the Deep State Cabal designed to scare the f u c k out of Americans so they will not refuse to be vaccinated.
Sad.
Covid19 Vaccine & INFORMED CONSENT - DON'T DO IT
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us