MB Comment: We are repeating this May 23rd article on informed consent because it is the essence of medical ethics. This is the American Medical Association (AMA) position on informed consent, not a revisionist fringe interpretation. The recent Seattle Weekly (SW) article generated interest in the Refusers from people checking out what we are about. That SW article obviously had an agenda, insinuating that making an informed decision about vaccination was wrong. I disagree with that insinuation. The Refusers are in the mainstream of medical ethics (informed consent). We are not telling anyone else what to do, we are simply standing up for everyone’s right to make their own informed decision. If someone suggests that they can cram medical procedures down your throat (or veins) without your permission, that is called forced medication and it violates the AMA’s position on informed consent. That is the subject of our new Refusers song ‘Vaccination Choice is a Human Right.’
MB Comment from May 23rd article:
This is the American Medical Association’s position on informed consent. The key point is ‘ … he or she can make an informed decision to proceed or to refuse a particular course of medical intervention.’ Please notice the word refuse. It is our right to refuse ‘a particular course of medical intervention.’ It doesn’t say ‘except vaccination.’ Informed consent is the backbone of medical ethics. You have the right to say no. Doctors who assert that you do not have a choice about vaccines are violating this medical code of ethics. Vaccination choice is a human right.
American Medical Association
‘Informed consent is more than simply getting a patient to sign a written consent form. It is a process of communication between a patient and physician that results in the patient’s authorization or agreement to undergo a specific medical intervention.
In the communications process, you, as the physician providing or performing the treatment and/or procedure (not a delegated representative), should disclose and discuss with your patient:
- The patient’s diagnosis, if known;
- The nature and purpose of a proposed treatment or procedure;
- The risks and benefits of a proposed treatment or procedure;
- Alternatives (regardless of their cost or the extent to which the treatment options are covered by health insurance);
- The risks and benefits of the alternative treatment or procedure; and
- The risks and benefits of not receiving or undergoing a treatment or procedure.
In turn, your patient should have an opportunity to ask questions to elicit a better understanding of the treatment or procedure, so that he or she can make an informed decision to proceed or to refuse a particular course of medical intervention.
This communications process, or a variation thereof, is both an ethical obligation and a legal requirement spelled out in statutes and case law in all 50 states. (For more information about ethical obligations, see the AMA’s Code of Medical Ethics, contained in the AMA PolicyFinder. Providing the patient relevant information has long been a physician’s ethical obligation, but the legal concept of informed consent itself is recent.’