“Informed consent is vital and is the cornerstone of the Code”, said Morag McDowell, Health and Disability Commissioner in her report following her investigation into the GP who emailed patients about his concerns about the Covid-19 vaccine and on behalf of New Zealand Doctors Speaking Out with Science.
It would be funny if it weren’t so tragic, but it is not a laughing matter.
The text he sent on August 19, 2021, said: “Hi [name], your GP [Dr’s name] here. I cannot in conscience support COVID vaccination of, particularly, children, and pregnant and fertile women, from my assessment of current risks and benefits, best explained at www.nzdsos.com.”
The website acronym stands for New Zealand Doctors Speak Out with Science. They said they are a group of doctors, dentists, and medical professionals who were “concerned about the safety of the roll-out of the Pfizer vaccine“.
The GP’s views were from his assessment of risks and benefits. He provided information to his patients so they could make an informed decision. He is, after all, the professional. But no, what it means to the Health and Disability Commissioner in her findings is that he was not supporting the Government-mandated program, the only game in town. Even though he had legitimate concerns about the vaccine, especially for children and pregnant and fertile women.
The GP’s text continued: “All to make their own best decision. I apologise for any distress. My views are my own, not the consensus. [The medical centre] will continue with rollout invites. Email, do not ring, to [email address]. With gratitude, and respect for the informed decision this has to be. Do not reply by text.” (Emphasis added)
Health and Safety Commissioner Morag McDowell “found the GP breached the Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers’ Rights in relation to multiple patients. She added his failure to provide balanced information to patients went against the Medical Council of New Zealand (MCNZ) standards too.
McDowell criticised the GP’s failure to give one patient, who he saw in person, “balanced and accurate information” to allow them to make an informed choice about whether or not to be vaccinated. The Commissioner also found another patient didn’t receive information from the GP that a “reasonable person in his circumstances” would expect to receive.
GP told to apologise after sending unsolicited texts to 600 patients advising them against COVID-19 vaccines (msn.com)
The GP’s email was providing a sound basis on which his patients could make their own decision, to give or not give their informed consent to have or not have the vaccination. “With gratitude, and respect for the informed decision this has to be.” His heartfelt, honest words.
The Commissioner, along with every government stooge who mandated this madness, has decided that it was wrong of him to exercise his professional judgement and provide information for his patients. The government required that he support the ‘podium of odium’, the one source of ‘truth’, and direct his patients to accept the directive and the jab meekly without question and regardless of any misgivings.
We did not give our informed consent. We were coerced into submission, docile as pet lambs. There was no way for us to give our informed consent to have the vaccination. We were ‘permitted’ to decline the vaccination only at a significant personal cost. If we were to keep our jobs, we had to get jabbed. If we wanted to go out to a café, we had to stabbed. If we wished to travel to see family once the lockdowns and restrictions ended, then we had to be needled. That there would be no requirement to have the experimental fluid injected into our bodies and no consequences if we chose not to accept it was an outright lie smirkingly stated by the Prime Minister.
What information did we have in order to give our informed consent?
The Government website COVID-19 vaccination: Your questions answered | Unite against COVID-19 (covid19.govt.nz) is simply a series of opinion statements. Answers to rhetorical questions they themselves asked.
There is no scientific information, there are no scholarly articles to read and evaluate. In short, no basis at all for giving our informed consent. Just government propaganda.
All in all, it was a slick marketing campaign. Be kind. It was all carefully orchestrated to lull the trusting population into taking the one course of government-approved action and make them think they were being looked after. Lie after lie after lie fell from the lips of those we were exhorted to trust, for our own good, of course.
We could not give our informed consent, as we were uninformed. The so-called ‘science’ was half-baked if not twisted to suit. The ‘vaccine’ was used in the experimental stage only throughout; there were no long-term use studies or articles to consider and to use for decision-making. The effects on especially cardiovascular health and the loss of that along with thousands of other deaths unfolded as vaccination numbers increased worldwide. If informed consent was based on the reality of pertinent, accurate and timely scientific information, then thousands more of us would not have had the poison injected into our concerned bodies.
Pragmatism laced with fear for our jobs, our ability to survive financially, and fear for our lives, became our choice and the basis of our so-called consent. Coercion is not consent.
The GP at the heart of this imbroglio now has no practising certificate. He had the best interests of his patients at heart. And now when every doctor, every nurse, and every health professional is desperately needed, he remains one of those we have seen run out of their profession. And the government sees nothing wrong in this, despite a collapsing health system.
The Code of Ethics for New Zealand doctors states:
Standard treatises on medical ethics cite four moral principles: autonomy, beneficence, non–maleficence and justice. Autonomy recognises the rights of patients to make decisions for themselves. Beneficence requires a doctor to achieve the best possible outcome for an individual patient, while recognising resource constraints. Non-maleficence implies a duty to do no harm. (This principle involves consideration of risks versus benefits from particular procedures.) Justice incorporates notions of equity and of the fair distribution of resources.
Code of Ethics Redesign 2020_updated.indd (website-files.com)
The GP was upholding all of these standard treatises. That the government saw fit to overrule those, along with the suspension of the Bill of Rights as suited Ms Ardern and her minions, is reprehensible, disgraceful and immoral.
If the GP’s use of email to contact patients was wrong, then make that the issue.
If the GP could have approached the situation differently and without incurring the wrath of the Health and Disability Commissioner, then make that the issue.
If some patients were alarmed, then make that the issue.
But this issue was not that this GP was providing patients with information on which to either give or withhold their consent.
The issue is that he dared to go against the government ‘single source of truth.’
He was courageous. He was concerned. He was honourable. He was adhering to the Code of Ethics as he was required to do as the basis of his right to practise. He has now been defamed and has been made to apologise for having his patients’ best interests at heart.
This GP is not the problem here. He deserves a medal.