For consent to serve as a defense to allegations of either negligence or assault and battery, it must meet certain requirements. The consent must be voluntary, the individual must have the capacity to consent, and the individual must have been properly informed.
The patient must be given an adequate explanation about the nature of the proposed investigation or treatment, its purported benefits, significant risks, and alternative treatment options. The information must be such as to allow the patient to reach an informed decision.
Patients must always be free to consent to or refuse treatment and be free of any suggestion of duress or coercion. Consent obtained under any suggestion of compulsion either by the actions or words of the physician or others may be no consent at all and therefore may be considered assault.
The doctrine of informed consent and the right to refuse treatment was detailed in the Ontario Court of Appeal decision of Fleming v. Reid (1991):
“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 rights of citizens of Canada to bodily sovereignty and medical choice are protected under the medical and legal ethic of expressed informed consent and are entitled to the full protections guaranteed under:
➢ Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982) Section 2a, 2b, 7, 8, 9, 15
https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/download-order-charter-bill.html
➢ Helsinki Declaration (1964) Article 25,26
https://www.wma.net/what-we-do/medical-ethics/declaration-of-helsinki/
Unfortunately, many of these foundational rights are routinely ignored, dismissed, or blatantly infringed upon by governments, health authorities, schools, daycares, employers, the medical profession, and even our courts.
Therefore, a key component to protecting our right to informed consent is knowing and standing up for one’s right to medical choice. Ultimately it is our responsibility to defend our right to informed consent, bodily sovereignty, and the right of parents to make medical decisions for their children. Without these rights, we do not have an ethical medical system.
When it comes to the administration of vaccines, rarely is the process of informed consent honoured. Children, adults, and the elderly are routinely injected without the legal and ethical responsibility to secure informed consent. This is a violation of the fundamentals of an ethical medical system.
VCC Position: Vaccine Choice Canada is a strong advocate in protecting the right to informed consent, bodily sovereignty, and the right of parents to make medical decisions for their children. We hold that the failure to obtain informed consent for vaccination violates both legal and moral requirements, and further, that the common use of duress and coercion constitutes medical assault and battery.
When the principles of free will and informed consent is adhered to, medical treatments, including vaccines, cannot be mandated. Governments are free to recommend and authorize the sale of a permitted medical treatment for those who wish to take it. It is wholly inappropriate for a government, doctor, or public health officer to prescribe a specified medical treatment without informed consent.
In Canada, all vaccinations are voluntary. Currently, two provinces, Ontario and New Brunswick, require the filing of an exemption if declining a recommended childhood vaccine for school attendance.
VCC Position: There must be no mandated medical interventions. As free and sovereign individuals, we must make our own voluntary informed decisions for our own particular health needs and circumstances. An individual or parent should always be free to evaluate risks and benefits in their own particular circumstances. Vaccines must never be mandated regardless of their purported safety and efficacy. The perceived ‘common good’ does not supersede an individual’s right to free will, medical choice, and bodily autonomy. We also hold the position that a simple – “I do not consent” is sufficient and that the requirement to file a written exemption, as occurs in Ontario and New Brunswick, is coercive and should be eliminated.
The Mature Minor Doctrine, also known as the Infants Act, was introduced by governments to allow adolescents under the age of majority to access birth control and abortion services without the knowledge or consent of their parents. The scope of this doctrine has been expanded in recent years to permit children as young as nine years of age to consent to vaccination and other life altering decisions without the knowledge or consent of their parents. The age of consent under this doctrine varies by Province with some provinces having no specified age of consent under the Mature Minor Doctrine.
VCC Position: Vaccinations are too complex a medical decision to permit dependent children to consent without the guidance of their parents. Children do not have the maturity or life experience to weigh the risks and/or benefits of medical treatments. Contraindications to vaccination include individual and family medical history, prior reactions, and natural immunity, due to previous exposure which a child may not be aware of. The Mature Minor Doctrine undermines parental authority and their responsibility to make medical decisions for their children.
Read more:
More recently, public health agencies have placed vaccination clinics in school settings.
VCC Position: It is the position of VCC that vaccination clinics should not be permitted in school settings, and that vaccines should be administered by a health professional who knows the child’s and family’s medical history.
The herding of children into a gymnasium or cafeteria and the effects of peer pressure violate the fundamentals of informed consent. Vaccination is a life altering decision, and the effects of vaccination cannot be undone.
Parents are advised to exercise extreme caution when a vaccine clinic is being operated within a school setting, and to not assume that verbal or written notice to the principal or teacher will suffice to prevent an unwanted medical intervention.
We advise parents to remove their child from a school when a vaccine clinic is operating within the school to avoid undue duress placed upon their child by either school personnel, public health, or peers.
Informed consent is a communication process that addresses the following questions: