OP-ED The Death of Informed Consent - American Thinker

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Posted for fair use......

September 7, 2023

The Death of Informed Consent​

By Stella Paul

Here's what never happened in the hospital during COVID: a doctor sat down next to a patient and said, "You have a choice. We can give you Remdesivir, which killed 53% of the patients in an Ebola trial. It was so bad the trial had to be shut down. And you'll notice here in Remdesivir's fact sheet, it says, 'Not a lot of people have used Remdesivir. Serious and unexpected side effects may happen.' Or we can give you ivermectin, a safe and effective drug that's been successfully used for decades, and send you home. Which do you prefer?"

The reason that conversation never happened is that it would have cost the hospital too much money. If the hospital gave you ivermectin and sent you home, the federal government paid the hospital $3,200. If the hospital gave you Remdesivir, the federal government paid the entire hospital bill, plus a 20% bonus. So the hospital executives' choice was to receive $3,200 or $500,000, which was the average hospital bill. No contest. Patients were going to get Remdesivir — whether they wanted it or not.

Informed consent died a grotesque death in the hospitals during COVID, and we need an autopsy. There was no information, and there was no consent, and without them, patients are reduced to helpless victims, exploited for corrupt financial gain and immoral experiments.

Informed consent has been enshrined in numerous judicial rulings as the foundation of ethical medical practice and seared into the public's conscience from the Nuremberg trials. Seven Nazi doctors were hanged in Germany by an American military tribunal for "murders, tortures, and other atrocities committed in the name of medical science." Yet murders, tortures, and other atrocities are exactly what was committed by medical staff in the hospitals against thousands of Americans during COVID.

Take, for example, Ray Lamar, who arrived in the emergency room with a message written with a black sharpie pen on his arm: "NO VENT NO REMDESIVIR." On his other arm, he wrote the same message and added his wife's name and phone number. Yet the doctors gave him Remdesivir anyway, without ever informing him. His widow Patti told me she constantly wonders what she could have done to save him.

248662_5_.jpg

Image via Patti Lamar.


7_238_9.gif

Christine Johnson told the doctors that she discussed all her medications with her daughter, who is a nurse, and she concluded that she didn't want Remdesivir. It didn't matter. Christine was given Remdesivir while she was sleeping, and now her daughter Michelle doesn't have her mother.

Rebecca Stevens was an avid reader of Epoch Times, where she learned about Remdesivir's dangers. She declined Remdesivir on five separate occasions, as her hospital records confirm. But the medical staff didn't care what Rebecca wanted. She was given Remdesivir without her knowledge, and now Rebecca's five grandsons are bereft.

I asked Michael Hamilton how it's possible to give Remdesivir to patients without them knowing. Hamilton is a lawyer for several families who are suing California hospitals for the murder of their loved ones, and he's heard thousands of victims' stories. "They would lie right to your face," he said. "You'd tell the nurse that you didn't want Remdesivir and she'd say, 'Fine. But you're a bit dehydrated, so let's get some fluids in you.' And she'd hook up the IV, but it wasn't fluids. It was Remdesivir."

Hamilton told me that another favored tactic was to knock out patients with sedatives like morphine and fentanyl. While they lay there in a stupor, they were injected with Remdesivir.

If secret injections of Remdesivir weren't enough to kill you, the hospitals had more torture lined up. After all, the federal government paid hospitals a big bonus to ventilate patients — so patients were going to get ventilated, whether they wanted to or not. A lot of patients turned down being vented, because the whole process is a nightmare. You're painfully intubated, rendered unable to talk; your lungs start shredding, and you may acquire bacterial pneumonia, which the hospital will refuse to treat.

7_74_19.gif

But "no" is not an acceptable answer when the hospital has money at stake. The medical staff's preferred method for gaining "consent" was relentless bullying, screaming, coercion, and threats until the patient finally caved. Patti Lamar, Ray's widow, told me that when she refused to let them ventilate her husband, the doctors screamed at her over and over, "You're killing him! You're killing him! You're killing him!" When she couldn't take it anymore, she reluctantly gave in. Ray died shortly thereafter, and Patti lives with the trauma of that moment.

248663_5_.jpgf
248663_5_.jpg

Image via Dayna Stevens.

Michael Hamilton told me the fate of his friend who was a nurse, hospitalized in the place where she had worked for 26 years. When she refused ventilation, the doctor shrieked, "You're refusing medical advice! Now your insurance company won't pay your hospital bill when you die! Do you want to bankrupt your family? Do you? Do you?" The nurse panicked, and to protect her family, she "consented." Two days later, she died.

"This was a very common technique," Hamilton said. "I've heard it hundreds of times. You tell the patient that unless they do what the doctor says, they'll bankrupt their family because insurance won't pay the hospital bills. Nobody wants to do that to their family." Does this sound like informed consent to you? It sounds more like medical battery to me.

The entire hospital environment was a hellscape of abuse in which informed consent wasn't even a distant memory. Hamilton told me that patients were routinely denied all access to food and water, stupefied with 50 medications that included drugs contraindicated for each other, tortured with oxygen machines set at such high levels that they couldn't breathe, and zip-tied to the bed till their wrists bled and their hands turned black. His stories align with 1,000 collected testimonies of the COVID-19 Human Betrayal Memory Project, which documents the victims' fates.

The ultimate denial of informed consent was the hospitals' refusal to allow the patients to leave. "Patients lost all rights when they went in the hospital," Senator Ron Johnson told Patty Myers in her documentary, Making A Killing. "They became prisoners." A cottage industry of hospital rescues cropped up, as desperate family members hired lawyers to try to spring their loved ones out of hospital "care." Ralph Lorigo, a lawyer in Buffalo, told me that in every case when he succeeded in getting a patient's case before a judge and the judge ruled in the family's favor, the patient went home and survived. In all cases where the judge refused to hear the case or ruled against the family, the patient died.

Every American is a sovereign individual with inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, not a sack of meat to be treated as a profit opportunity. Informed consent must be revived from the grave if Americans are to have a fighting chance against powerful financial interests allied against them.

Stella Paul is on X at @StellaPaulNY. You can reach her at stellapaulny@gmail.com.

47 Comments
 

parsonswife

Veteran Member
Updated info



In a significant blow to patient autonomy, informed consent has been quietly revoked just 77 years after it was codified in the Nuremburg

On the 21st of December 2023, as we were frantically preparing for the festive season, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a final ruling to amend a provision of the 21st Century Cures Act. This allowed

“... an exception from the requirement to obtain informed consent when a clinical investigation poses no more than a minimal risk to the human subject ...” [emphasis added]

This ruling went into effect on January 22nd, 2024, which means it’s already standard practice across America.

So, what is the 21st Century Cures Act? It is a controversial Law enacted by the 114th United States Congress in January 2016 with strong support from the pharmaceutical industry. The Act was designed to

“... accelerate the discovery, development, and delivery of 21st-century cures, and for other purposes [?] ...”

Some of the provisions within this Act make for uncomfortable reading. For example, the Act supported:

• High-risk, high-reward research [Sec. 2036].
• Novel clinical trial designs [Sec. 3021]
• Encouraging vaccine innovation [Sec. 3093].

This Act granted the National Institutes of Health (NIH) legal protection to pursue high-risk, novel vaccine research. A strong case could be made that these provisions capture all the necessary architecture required for much of the evil that transpired over the past four years.

Overturning patient-informed consent was another stated goal of the original Act. Buried under Section 3024 was the provision to develop an “Informed consent waiver or alteration for clinical investigation.”

Scholars of medical history understand that the concept of informed consent, something we all take for granted today, is a relatively new phenomenon codified in its modern understanding as one of the critical principles of the Nuremberg Code in 1947. It is inconceivable that just 77 years after Nuremberg, the door has once again opened for state-sanctioned medical experimentation on potentially uninformed and unwilling citizens.

According to this amendment, the state alone, acting through the NIH, the FDA, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), will decide what is considered a “minimal risk” and, most concerning, will determine:

“... appropriate safeguards to protect the rights, safety, and welfare of human subjects.”

Notice the term subjects, not patients, persons, individuals, or citizens... but subjects. In asymmetrical power relationships such as clinician/patient, it is understood that the passive subject will comply with the rulings and mandates of their medical masters. The use of the term subjects also serves to dehumanise. The dehumanisation of populations was a critical component of Nazi human experimentation and, as Hannah Arendt argued, is an essential step toward denying citizens “... the right to have rights.”

This ruling also allows researchers and their misguided evangelical billionaire backers to potentially pursue dangerous experimental programs such as Bill Gates’ mosquito vaccines, mRNA vaccines in livestock, and vaccines in aerosols. This Act encourages these novel and high-risk programs, with medical studies approved as “minimal risk” by the regulators no longer requiring researchers and pharmaceutical companies to obtain patient consent. Yet, the histories of pharmacology and medicine are plagued with clinical investigations and interventions that were thought to pose no more than minimal risk to humans but went on to cause immeasurable pain, suffering, and death.
This amendment represents merely a first tentative step as the U.S. government tests the waters to see what it can get away with. Given the lack of attention this ruling received in both the corporate press and independent media, the government is likely to feel emboldened to widen its scope. Thus, this decision represents the beginning of a chilling revisionism in Western medical history, as patient autonomy is again forsaken.

This ruling, to be actioned by potentially corrupt scientists, health bureaucrats, and captured health and drug regulators, is another step toward a dystopian future unimaginable just five years ago. No doubt the infrastructure to implement this decree is already being constructed by the same groupthink cultists responsible for the nightmarish pandemic lockdowns, continuing to place the pursuit of profit and the greater good above individual choice, bodily autonomy, and informed consent.

From the Brownstone Institute
 

Samuel Adams

Has No Life - Lives on TB
When this whole mess really gets a light of day treatment it will make Nuremberg look like a run of the mill murder trial from the amount of coverage it will get.

It should.

But it won’t.

The ship of righteous retribution sailed long before this version of informed consent fell off the edge of flat earth.

Especially in America, mankind has gone bland and numb.

Action is the last thing on its collective mind.
 

aznurse

Veteran Member
Early on in this scam the Europeans instituted high flow oxygen. Not ventilation. Also, any competent nurse knows to administer a medicine against the patient's wishes is battery. I would have quit, plenty of jobs!
 

Dreamer

Veteran Member
The New Hampshire House just passed a bill (HB1280) to put the basic tenets of informed consent from the American Medical Association into the law for physicians and surgeons. The actual words, not a link to whatever the AMA decides.

Democrats and the establishment said informed consent is to hard and expensive… while saying the law is unnecessary because they are already doing it…

It came out of committee with all the Republicans in support and all the Democrats opposed. It squeaked out of the House 189-181, with 185 Republicans and 4 Democrats voting yes, and 4 Republicans and 176 Democrats voting no.

A bill (HB1093) to prohibit mandatory masking in schools was even more of a squeaker passing 187-184. That was 186R+1D for and 4R+179D against.

With 400 hundred representatives for a population of 1.38 million people and pay of just $100 a year those guys and gals still do a great job of representing the people, not lobbyists.
 
Top