In April 2021, John decided that for the protection of his patients and to protect their access to him, he would take the C19 inoculation. Within less than 20 minutes, John began to experience swelling in his lips and later on in the day, cranial pressure manifested. A neurologist later found that John was presenting with autoimmune encephalitis. This event was much more likely to happen to John, given his past medical history of auto-immune disease.

Normally, on the basis of his past history, John would have qualified for an exemption to the inoculation, had officials used informed consent as the medical community is usually required. Informed consent is about respecting the unique circumstances of each individual.

John believes that informed consent was virtually non-existent with respect to these experimental, gene-based inoculations, and the public needs to understand what informed consent is.

The following is found on the CPMA (the Canadian Medical Protective Association) website:

Informed consent

Disclosure of information

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 information must be such as will allow the patient to reach an informed decision. In situations where the patient is not mentally capable, the discussion must take place with the substitute decision maker.

 

The obligation to obtain informed consent must always rest with the physician who is to carry out the treatment or investigative procedure. This obligation may be delegated in appropriate circumstances (to a PGY trainee for example) but before assigning this duty to another, the treating physician should be confident the delegate has the knowledge and experience to provide adequate explanations to the patient.

 

In special circumstances, an obligation of pre-treatment disclosure may fall to more than one physician involved in the care. For example, a radiologist carrying out an invasive diagnostic procedure would likely be seen as responsible for explaining how the test will be done and the risks attendant upon it. The physician who ordered the test might also be expected to tell the patient, in general terms, about the nature and purpose of the test and alternatives which might be employed.