News
Featured Image
UNESCO signShutterstock

December 3, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — In contrast to the current push in countries across the globe to make a coronavirus vaccine mandatory, the 2005 UNESCO Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights declares that “medical intervention” requires the “free and informed consent of the person concerned.”

The UNESCO declaration states in Article 6, “Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information.”

Although the text itself appears to have an obvious meaning, the United Nations has both provided interpretations and acted in contradiction to the literal meaning.

In a document that elaborates upon the application of the declaration, UNESCO states that consent for medical treatment, as opposed to medical research, “is generally regarded as less critical, since the patient is in need of help and often does not have much choice. Although the patient must in principle consent to treatment and have the right to refuse it, in most cases implicit consent may be sufficient.”

It is unclear what is meant by “implicit consent.”

UNESCO’s document on the declaration also pointed out that there are “communitarian” interpretations of Article 6, according to which “individual rights are regarded as secondary to the needs of the community or the state, who has the obligation to guarantee law and order, stabilize social structures, set health policy goals, and so on.”

Article 6, which has recently been shared and censored on Twitter, even appears to have been flouted by the UN’s own Population Fund (UNFPA), which is reported to have been complicit in China’s family planning policy of forced abortions and sterilizations through the donation of resources that were used by China to enforce their coercive “population policies.” A UNFPA official in China was also reported to have operated out of the Office of Family Planning in Sihui.

Medical intervention without consent is not only applauded in countries known for human rights abuses, such as China. Influential figures in countries like the United States and Great Britain are proposing forced medical intervention in the form of state-mandated COVID-19 vaccines.

The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health recently hosted a discussion in which legal and public health expert Joanne Rosen cited the 1905 Supreme Court case Jacobson v. Massachusetts as precedent for mandatory vaccines. The Supreme Court stated at the time, “It is within the police power of a State to enact a compulsory vaccination law.”

Famed American lawyer and Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz argued earlier this year that we “have no right not to be vaccinated,” and that “if you refuse to be vaccinated, the state has the power to literally take you to a doctor’s office and plunge a needle into your arm.”

— Article continues below Petition —
PETITION: No to government and corporate penalties for refusing COVID-19 vaccine
  Show Petition Text
102918 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 125000!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.

                                                                                                                      **Photo credit: Shutterstock.com

Mainstream media sources are promoting offensive suggestions by some doctors that people who refuse a vaccine for COVID-19 should be "punished" by the government and by business - effectively coercing them into taking the vaccine.

  • One group of doctors writing in 'USA Today' suggested that the government impose special taxes (i.e., fines) on people who refuse the vaccination and that business simply refuse to serve them. [see story below]
  • Another doctor writing in an online publication called 'The Conversation' shamelessly suggested that people who refuse a vaccine should be given a psychoactive drug to induce compliance. [see story below]

But, these suggestions are plain political posturing, and have nothing to do with science or with the recent trends of the disease.

And, in case they haven't noticed, we live in a democracy not a medical dictatorship!

Please SIGN this urgent petition which asks policy-makers and business people, at all levels, to pledge to respect the rights of those who, in good conscience, decide not to vaccinate themselves or their children.

People should not have to live in fear of governmental or corporate retribution for refusing a vaccine which is being rushed to market by Big Pharma and their fellow-travelers in NGOs, like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

It would be intolerable and immoral for the government or business to coerce someone, and their family, to take a COVID vaccine against their will to avoid a fine, or just so they can do their weekly grocery shopping.

Medical freedom must be respected in principle and also in practice.

So, it is now time that our policy-makers listen to all voices involved in this vital conversation, and start to represent those who will not tolerate being punished for refusing a vaccine.

Simply put, legislatures must begin to act as legislatures again.

Questions must be asked. Hearings and investigations must be held. And, the legislatures of each state and country must return to the business of representing the people who voted for them, assuming their rightful place as the originator of legislation.

We can no longer accept the dictates of executive branches without question, especially now that, statistically speaking, the initial brunt of the COVID crisis has passed.

Neither can we accept the dictates of doctors who seem detached from reality and from science, and who only seem to be attached to the idea of promoting ideas which contribute to the agrandizement of power and control of political interests, and wealth of those who stand to make a lot of money from the sale of a COVID vaccine.

Please SIGN this urgent petition which asks government and business leaders to pledge to respect the rights of those who refuse a COVID vaccine, and not seek to punish them for doing so.

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

'Doctors lay out plan to ‘punish’ people who refuse coronavirus vaccine: ‘There is no alternative’' - https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/doctors-lay-out-plan-to-punish-people-who-refuse-coronavirus-vaccine-there-is-no-alternative

'US professor: ‘Psychoactive pill’ should be covertly administered to ensure lockdown compliance' - https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/us-professor-ensure-lockdown-compliance-by-drugging-dissenters-with-psychoactive-pill

  Hide Petition Text

A recent resolution passed by the New York State Bar Association (NYSBA) proposed consideration of a mandatory COVID-19 vaccine once it is available.

The NYSBA resolution also proposed a “state emergency health powers act” to address “gaps in existing laws in New York, drawing upon the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act (MSEHPA) drafted in 2001.”

The MSEHPA, which was prepared by The Center for Law and the Public’s Health at Georgetown and Johns Hopkins Universities for the CDC, states, “To prevent the spread of contagious or possibly contagious disease the public health authority may isolate or quarantine, pursuant to Section 604, persons who are unable or unwilling for reasons of health, religion, or conscience to undergo vaccination pursuant to this Section.”

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has said in April that he needed time to “reflect” on the possibility of making a coronavirus vaccine mandatory in Canada.

British Health Secretary Matt Hancock said Nov. 16 that the government would not rule out mandatory vaccines, even if it was not proposing it at the moment.

Comments

Commenting Guidelines

LifeSiteNews welcomes thoughtful, respectful comments that add useful information or insights. Demeaning, hostile or propagandistic comments, and streams not related to the storyline, will be removed.

LSN commenting is not for frequent personal blogging, on-going debates or theological or other disputes between commenters.

Multiple comments from one person under a story are discouraged (suggested maximum of three). Capitalized sentences or comments will be removed (Internet shouting).

LifeSiteNews gives priority to pro-life, pro-family commenters and reserves the right to edit or remove comments.

Comments under LifeSiteNews stories do not necessarily represent the views of LifeSiteNews.