Mandated Covid Jabs and Health Practitioners’ Obligation to Obtain ‘Voluntary Informed Consent’
By Elizabeth Hart
For the attention of:
Kamran Abbasi
Editor in chief of The BMJ
Copied to:
People influential on international public health/vaccination policy via the scientific and medical establishment, and other parties
Kamran Abbasi, the global manufactured Covid crisis has resulted in shocking abuses against people’s personal autonomy and bodily integrity, i.e. lockdowns and restrictions, highly questionable PCR testing and RATs, mandated masking, intrusive surveillance and vaccine passports and, most egregious of all, mandated Covid jabs.
Mandated medical interventions, i.e. mandated Covid jabs, are an appalling development in liberal democracies such as Australia – how has this happened with the apparent support of the medical profession?
Mandated Covid jabs are rife in Australia, across a broad range of occupations, and have previously been imposed upon people to participate in other areas of civil society, e.g. to access entertainment and hospitality venues, sports clubs and retail etc.
Mandated Covid jabs conflict with health practitioners’ obligation to obtain ‘voluntary informed consent’ before a medical intervention, including vaccination.
I have sought to raise the alarm on this matter throughout the Covid debacle (see for example my email: Coercive COVID-19 vaccination…people in distress…, dated 20 October 2021), but the regulator of health practitioners, the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA), and doctors’ professional organisations have refused to be accountable, even though AHPRA has provided me with personal confirmation that “Practitioners have an obligation to obtain informed consent for treatment, including vaccination. Informed consent is a person’s voluntary decision about health care that is made with knowledge and understanding of the benefits and risks involved.”
Despite this confirmation from AHPRA that health practitioners have an obligation to obtain ‘voluntary informed consent’, many people in Australia continue to be pressured, coerced and manipulated to submit to Covid jabs under mandates. The situation is complicated in that AHPRA threatens health practitioners who question the Australian Government’s Covid jab rollout, i.e. “Any promotion of anti-vaccination statements or health advice which contradicts the best available scientific evidence or seeks to actively undermine the national immunisation campaign (including via social media) is not supported by National Boards and may be in
breach of the codes of conduct and subject to investigation and possible regulatory action.”
The question is…who defines what is “the best available scientific evidence” for the Covid jabs? This is currently a highly contentious subject, particularly as it bears on the quality of information being given to people by health practitioners before penetration with the Covid needles.
Kamran Abbasi, there is much at stake here for the reputation of the international medical profession – is it a willing party to pressing Covid-19 ‘leaky vaccines’ upon mass populations, against a disease it was known from the beginning wasn’t a serious threat to most people? These medical interventions are unnecessary for most people, and may cause harm.
Why haven’t the doctors’ professional organisations and medical indemnity insurers challenged Covid jab mandates, which obviously go against health practitioners’ obligation to obtain ‘voluntary informed consent’?
I’m pursuing this matter in Australia, including with the Chief Medical Officer, Health Minister, and medical indemnity insurers, and doctors’ professional organisations.
Kamran Abbasi, what is The BMJ’s position on health practitioners complying with mandated Covid jabs, contravening their obligation to obtain ‘voluntary informed consent’?
I look forward to your response on this matter, and open discussion on this subject on The BMJ.
Sincerely
Elizabeth Hart
Independent researcher investigating the over-use of vaccine products and conflicts of interest in vaccination policy
Mandated Covid jabs – What is the scientific and medical justification for these mandated medical interventions?
For the attention of:
Paul Kelly
Chief Medical Officer
Director of Human Biosecurity
Australian Government
Department of Health and Aged Care
Copied to:
People influential on taxpayer-funded public health/vaccination policy in Australia, via the scientific and medical establishment
Paul Kelly, it appears that Covid jab mandates are rife around Australia, with people in a broad range of occupations being pressured, coerced and manipulated to submit to Covid jabs to maintain their employment, i.e. No Jab, No Job.
Please clarify the Australian Health Protection Principal Committee’s position on Covid jab mandates – what Covid jab mandates have been put in place at the AHPPC’s instigation?
What is the scientific and medical justification for these mandated medical interventions?
Mandated Covid jabs conflict with health practitioners’ obligation to obtain ‘voluntary informed consent’ before medical interventions, including vaccination. It’s likely that many people in Australia have submitted to the Covid jabs under duress, without ‘voluntary informed consent’.
I’m now seeking clarification on health practitioners’ medical indemnity insurance position if they have not properly obtained ‘voluntary informed consent’ before the Covid jabs. In this regard, please see below my email to Health Minister Mark Butler, which includes my email to Natasha Fenech, Group CEO and Managing Director of the Avant Mutual Group, a medical indemnity insurance provider. Similar emails have also been forwarded to other insurance providers MDA National, Medical Indemnity Protection Society and TEGO; and also to the presidents of doctors’ organisations the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners; the Royal Australasian College of Physicians; the Australian Medical Association; and the Australian Medical Professionals Society; plus Peter Malinauskas, premier of South Australia; and Martin Fletcher, CEO of the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA). The email is also publicly accessible via this link: Mandated Covid jabs – are health practitioners indemnified without ‘voluntary informed consent’? 4 October 2022.
I’ve followed up on this matter with a subsequent enquiry to Mark Butler, asking: Is there an Albanese Government COVID-19 jab medical indemnity insurance scheme for health practitioners? 7 October 2022.
Paul Kelly, again, please advise what Covid jab mandates have been put in place at the AHPPC’s instigation, and what is the scientific and medical justification for these mandated medical interventions?
I request your early response on this vitally important matter of public interest.
Sincerely
Elizabeth Hart
Independent researcher investigating the over-use of vaccine products and conflicts of interest in vaccination policy
Mandated Covid jabs – are health practitioners indemnified without ‘voluntary informed consent’?
For the attention of:
Mark Butler
Minister for Health and Aged Care
Australian Government Department of Health and Aged Care
Mark Butler, millions of Australians are being pressed to have Covid-19 ‘leaky vaccines’ over and over again, against a disease it was known from the beginning wasn’t a serious threat for most people, despite all the fear mongering hype and gaslighting of the global community. (See for example Laura Dodsworth’s book about the UK experience – A State of Fear, which describes how the Boris Johnson / UK government weaponised fear in response to Covid-19.)
Are people giving their ‘voluntary informed consent’ to these medical interventions? Are people being properly informed about the risks of Covid-19 in their own particular health circumstances, including parents of children?
The Morrison, and now Albanese, government has facilitated the unprecedented mass population Covid-19 jab rollout, with many people being pressured, coerced and manipulated to submit to the jabs under mandates.
It’s astonishing…mandated medical interventions in the supposed liberal democracy of Australia, what an appalling situation. It’s bewildering that the medical profession has not challenged mandated medical interventions.
How can people give ‘voluntary informed consent’ under Covid-19 jab mandates?
What is the medical indemnity insurance situation for health practitioners who have not obtained authentic ‘voluntary informed consent’ before these medical interventions?
Mark Butler, you are personally pressing Australians to have Covid-19 jabs, as reported in The Canberra Times: Health Minister Mark Butler urges Australians to take fourth and third COVID-19 vaccines, 26 September 2022.
You say: “I do say to the Australian people take whatever booster is available to you now, they are all very effective.”
They’re all ‘very effective”? Really? What’s your definition of ‘effective’? And you forgot to mention ‘safe’ – how safe are they?
It’s also notable The Canberra Times reports: “The federal government says it does not known [sic] how long a COVID-19 vaccine lasts, but recommends a third dose three months after receiving a second jab.”
This is mind-blowing… The Albanese government admits it doesn’t know how long a Covid-19 ‘vaccine’ lasts, but says have another one after three months. The Albanese government is subjecting the Australian population, including children, to a massive experiment and admitting these taxpayer-funded medical interventions are guesswork!!!
Mark Butler, you’re using your position as ‘health minister’ to pressure people to submit to the jabs you questionably describe as ‘very effective’, the jabs the Albanese government has no idea how long they ‘last’… I suggest you should be extremely careful about the medical advice you personally provide to the Australian people
On the subject of medical advice, I’m currently seeking clarification on the medical indemnity insurance position of health practitioners who jab people under Covid-19 jab mandates, e.g. via State and Territory Government directions, plus mandates instigated by employers/businesses, sports clubs, entertainment and hospitality venues, retail, etc.
It seems millions of Australians have been subject to jab mandates – so much for the sophistry of the Albanese government’s assurance that “Vaccination for COVID-19 is voluntary – as are all vaccinations in Australia – and people maintain the option to choose”. What’s the choice? To submit to the jabs or else forsake one’s livelihood, or even participation in civil society under the most broad mandates, e.g. No Jab, No Job; and No Jab, No Life? So much for ‘the option to choose’…
Meanwhile…what does it mean if health practitioners aren’t obtaining ‘voluntary informed consent’ before these often mandated medical interventions? Are they covered by their medical indemnity insurance if they fail to obtain authentic ‘voluntary informed consent’ before the jabs? Have AHPRA, the medical indemnity insurers, and the doctors’ professional organisations sought clarification on this vitally important ethical, and potentially legal, matter which has come to a head with the Covid-19 jab rollout?
Mark Butler, on this subject, please see my email below to Natasha Fenech, Group CEO and Managing Director of the Avant Mutual Group, a medical indemnity insurance provider. Similar emails have also been forwarded to other insurance providers MDA National, Medical Indemnity Protection Society and TEGO; and also to the presidents of doctors’ organisations the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners; the Royal Australasian College of Physicians; the Australian Medical Association; and the Australian Medical Professionals Society; plus Peter Malinauskas, premier of South Australia; and Martin Fletcher, CEO of the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA).
I look forward to your carefully considered response – this is a vitally important matter of public interest, and the Albanese government is accountable.
Sincerely
Elizabeth Hart
Independent researcher investigating the over-use of vaccine products and conflicts of interest in vaccination policy
Failure to obtain informed consent for Covid jabs – what is the indemnity insurance position of health practitioners?
For the attention of:
Natasha Fenech
Group CEO and Managing Director
Avant Mutual Group
Natasha Fenech, what is the indemnity insurance position of health practitioners who inject patients with Covid-19 ‘leaky vaccines’, knowing the patient is subject to a Covid jab mandate?
It’s important to clarify this matter as many people, including health practitioners, have been, and are being, mandated to have Covid-19 jabs via State and Territory Government directions, plus mandates instigated by employers/businesses, sports clubs, entertainment and hospitality venues, retail, etc.
The Covid-19 jabs are ‘leaky vaccines’ that do not prevent infection nor transmission, and purportedly provide ‘protection’ of very limited duration against a disease it was known from the beginning wasn’t a serious threat to most people. What is the evidence supporting these mandated medical interventions, impacting upon people of a variety of ages and health status?
The Covid jab mandates conflict with the obligation for health practitioners to obtain ‘voluntary informed consent’ before a medical intervention, i.e. as described in The Australian Immunisation Handbook, under Valid consent, i.e. “For consent to be legally valid, the following elements must be present…It must be given voluntarily in the absence of undue pressure, coercion or manipulation…It can only be given after the potential risks and benefits of the relevant vaccine, the risks of not having it, and any alternative options have been explained to the person.”
The Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) has also confirmed to me in writing that practitioners have an obligation to obtain informed consent, i.e. “Practitioners have an obligation to obtain informed consent for treatment, including vaccination. Informed consent is a person’s voluntary decision about health care that is made with knowledge and understanding of the benefits and risks involved.” See AHPRA letter dated 21 September 2021.
A factsheet published by the Australian Government Operation COVID Shield notes:
As a health professional you:
– require informed consent from a patient prior to providing them with a vaccination; and
– have a duty of care to ensure patients are making educated and informed decisions about vaccination.
The Operation COVID Shield factsheet notes:
A patient must provide informed consent prior to vaccination.
If a patient has not provided informed consent you should not vaccinate them, even if they are mandated to receive a COVID-19 vaccination to perform particular roles or enter certain settings.
Presumably millions of people in Australia have now been injected with Covid-19 ‘leaky vaccines’ via State and Territory Government directions, and mandates instigated by employers/businesses, sports clubs, entertainment and hospitality venues, retail, etc.
As many people have been pressured, coerced and manipulated to submit to the Covid-19 jabs via mandates, how can they have given ‘voluntary informed consent’ in accordance with The Australian Immunisation Handbook, the AHPRA confirmation letter dated 21 September 2021, and the Australian Government Operation COVID Shield factsheet?
Natasha Fenech, please clarify the indemnity insurance position of health practitioners who have injected their patients with Covid-19 ‘leaky vaccines’ without ‘voluntary informed consent’ being obtained.
This is a most important matter of public interest, and I request your early response.
Sincerely
Elizabeth Hart
Independent researcher investigating the over-use of vaccine products and conflicts of interest in vaccination policy
