From what I understand, even though vaccine companies are protected from liability, practitioners who give vaccines are not. I don't know how far any of the following information will get anyone in the current climate so it's shared with a big FWIW - and I am not a lawyer.
The Nuremberg Code states:
The Nuremberg Code (1947)
Permissible Medical Experiments
The great weight of the evidence before us to effect that certain types of medical experiments on human beings, when kept within reasonably well-defined bounds, conform to the ethics of the medical profession generally. The protagonists of the practice of human experimentation justify their views on the basis that such experiments yield results for the good of society that are unprocurable by other methods or means of study.
All agree, however, that certain basic principles must be observed in order to satisfy moral, ethical and legal concepts:
- The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.
The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs, or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.
- The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.
- The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results justify the performance of the experiment.
- The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.
- No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.
- The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.
- Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability or death.
- The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.
- During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.
- During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgment required of him, that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.
The text of the Nuremberg Code.
www.cirp.org
Given that RFK has already shown that vaccines haven't been adequately tested in some time and that there is adequate evidence that vaccines can cause injury, then each individual vaccination could be seen as an experiment because nobody knows how an individual will react in advance.
One of the other things that come out of the Nuremberg Trials was questioning what come to be known as the Nuremberg Defence. This is where those who were conducting medical experiments under orders from superiors tried to be absolved of any responsibility for their acts. The outcome was that they could still be held responsible, though they may not be punished as severely as their superiors. That kind of indicates that there might be just cause to pursue the practitioner giving the vaccine.
The above is reflected in the
"Principles of International Law Recognized in the Charter of the Nürnberg Tribunal and in the Judgment of the Tribunal" where Principles II, III and IV state:
Principle II
The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law.
Principle III
The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible Government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.
Principle IV
The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.
So the above actually points out that international law on the subject overrides any national or local law if you are in a country that is part of the UN.
Next is particular to Australia, but it might give others a clue on what to search for in their own countries.
The 9th Edition of the Australian Immunisation Handbook in regards to vaild consent states:
1.3.3 Valid consent
Valid consent can be defined as the
voluntary agreement by an individual to a proposed procedure, given after appropriate and reliable information about the procedure, including the potential risks and benefits, has been conveyed to the individual.3-7
For consent to be legally valid, the following elements must be present:8
- It must be given by a person with legal capacity, and of sufficient intellectual capacity to understand the implications of being vaccinated.
- It must be given voluntarily.
- It can only be given after the relevant vaccine(s) and their potential risks and benefits have been explained to the individual.
- The individual must have sufficient opportunity to seek further details or explanations about the vaccine(s) and/or their administration.
- Consent should be obtained before each vaccination, once it has been established that there are no medical conditions that contraindicate vaccination.
The Immunisation Handbook goes on to list adverse reactions and while these are not as detailed as vaccine package inserts, there is tacit admission by inclusion that vaccines can be harmful.
An Australian law firm also posted an article in 2012 about voluntary consent to medical procedures:
Consent
The established presumption is that every adult of sound mind has a right to determine what will be done to their body. Before anything is done to that person's body by any medical professional, their consent must be obtained.
Consent to treatment can be implied, verbal and written. However, it must also meet the legal requirements to make it 'valid'.
It is well established by case law and practice that valid consent must meet the following requirements:
- Competence/capacity of the patient.
- The consent is given voluntarily.
- The consent covers the procedure in question.
- That the patient was informed in making that decision.
For a doctor or other medical practitioner, the significant issue must be what constitutes valid consent. Outlined below are the legal principles established around the requirements and what they mean:-
[....]
2. Voluntariness
For consent to be valid, it must be given voluntarily.
A voluntary decision is one that is made freely by a patient in response to an understanding of the treatment options. The decision must be free from undue pressure, coercion or manipulation.
Treating health professionals and family members may assist the patient to come to a decision.
However, assistance must be distinguished from undue influence, with the latter involving a substitution with another person's wishes for that of the patients'. Accordingly, it is for the medical professional involved to be satisfied that it is from the patient, and not from family members or friends, or that undue influences are being placed upon the person.
Maurice Blackburn media law newsletter April 2012 edition.
www.mauriceblackburn.com.au
The above mentions that the doctor, apart from complying with international law, also has to ensure that there has been no undue influence from family members or friends - I wonder if that can be extended to employers?
In regards to 'Informed Consent' the article goes on to say that the doctor must also provide alternative treatment options and no treatment options. It also acknowledges that the onus is on the doctor to ensure that informed and valid consent has been gained and that
all information about the risks has been given:
4. Informed consent
When providing advice to a patient about the treatment or surgery to be performed, the following are necessary requirements that a medical professional must cover to ensure that the patient is giving informed consent. The patient should be advised of:
- the diagnosis
- recommended treatment
- material risks (insofar as a reasonable person would expect to be advised of significant risks) in percentage terms associated with:
- the recommended treatment
- alternative treatment options
- no treatment options
- significant risks to the particular patient.
These policies are from the Queensland Health Policy Statement: Informed Consent for Invasive Procedures and are based on the established case of
Rogers v Whittaker (1992) 175 CLR 479which established the following principle:
"A reasonable person in the patient's position if warned of the risk would be likely to attach significance to it; or if the medical practitioner is or should be reasonably aware that the particular patient if warned of the risk would be likely to attach significance to it."
In that case, the warnings were in relation to the losing of sight with respect to eye surgery that was to be performed. Not unexpectedly, the court held that a person is likely to attach significance to such potential risk because the risk was of permanent damage to one eye when the other eye was already badly damaged (see
Doctor's duty to warn about risks for more details on this case).
As modern medicine progress, it is worth bearing in mind that the more elective and discretionary the procedure is,
the greater responsibility there is on the doctor to provide information about risks. It is not enough for a doctor to just sign a paper; they must sit down with the patient and make sure that the patient understands the risks involved.
Finally, related and reinforcing the above, but secondary to it, are the legal elements of a
binding agreement or contract which states that any fraud, misrepresentation, duress, manipulation etc makes an agreement or contract void and puts the injured party in the position of being able to pursue the other party legally - that basically opens the field up a bit to include other authorities and enforcers aside from medical practitioners.
Entering into a contract must involve the elements of free will and proper understanding of what each of the parties is doing. In other words, the consent of each of the parties to a contract must be genuine. Only where the essential element of proper consent has been given is there a contract that is binding upon the parties.
Proper consent may be affected by any of the following matters:
• mistake;
• misrepresentation or misleading conduct;
•
duress;
•
undue influence or unconscionability; and
• unfair contract terms in standard form contracts.
Community driven justice since 1972. Contact us for help and guidance on your legal matters.
www.lawhandbook.org.au
While I don't think any of the above will actually prevent or protect against enforced vaccinations in the current climate, it might be handy to know that an attitude of non consent even in the presence of non resistance might form a part of 'knowledge protects' alongside the protocols that Keyhole has given earlier in the thread. The above might also serve to either buy time or figure out which practitioners, employers etc might be more likely to give exemptions in the short term if the information is presented to them respectfully and calmly and in the absence of any thought of legal challenge - which many of us can hardly afford at this time.
It also occurs to me that masks, tests, social distancing, lockdown etc could be seen to be medical treatments - or at least preventatives so the above might come in handy if one is fined for breaches where directives have been unclear or uncertain because they change every 5 minutes and there is so much conflicting information around.
The tricky thing to be aware of is that some countries have changed laws around declaring people mentally incompetent along with virus acts and statutes making it easier to enforce a mental health directives. If that is the case, some acts and statutes are saying that they can then give you any medical treatment they deem necessary so if the above information is used unwisely, one could still end up with a vaccination or being locked away. Though I figure it could be harder to prove mental incapacity if the information about valid and informed consent to medical treatments is known.