Introduction
Ontario’s Medical Officer of (Ill)Health has exerted pressure on physicians not to write letters of accommodation for medical, religions or conscience. His is doing is nothing short of an abuse of authority, breach of public trust, a violation of the Hippocratic oath and criminal intervention in the patient-physician relationship. Who will fact check him? Who elected him? Who will discipline and dismiss him? Doug Ford? Hardly! Justin (This-is-the-only-way-out) Trudeau? We know where Trudeau stands on the law and public policy of consent: he has brushed these guaranteed protections aside to satisfy the globalist anti-state sovereignty agenda.
But, what is the law and policy of consent regarding research ethics and medical therapies/treatment?
To begin with, I encourage readers to read the Canadian Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical conduct for research involving humans (Canada) issued by the federal, yes, that is what it says, the FEDERAL government of Canada:
https://ethics.gc.ca/eng/policy-politique_tcps2-eptc2_2018.html. But where does the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons stand? And What is the law of consent related to medical therapies and procedures?
Canadians and their loved ones have been coerced, induced and threatened by the prime minister and provincial and municipal ‘leaders’ to undergo and experimental and therapeutic medical procedure. This came/comes at the expense of their incomes, ability to move freely and to congregate. So what is the law and policy that are used to justify not only the draconian overreach of the prime minister and his provincial lackeys but also which is supposed to guide the practice of the medical establishment? I decided to check whether the College of Physicians and Surgeons Ontario (CPSO) has any hidden policy directive that intimidates and threatens physicians from their obligation to: a) provide free and informed consent to treatment, b) abide by the decisions of their patients and c) to provide letters of accommodation upon request. The person I spoke to at the CPSO Friday April 1, 2022, told me there is NO such directive to physicians from the CPSO. Again, I was told there are NO hidden CPSO policies to limit the autonomy of physicians in respect to patient consent, patient rights and letters of accommodation.
I was, moreover, told that if I have any concerns/questions about this messaging that I should contact the Ministry of (Ill)Health which sets public policy. It is worth noting that the minister, the medical officer and Ministry of (Ill)Health do not have the power to discipline physicians and surgeons – this is done by the tribunal of the CPSO where physicians who violate the law and conditions and terms of their licence. The reality is that the Ministry of (Ill)Health cannot, under any circumstances, supercede the law of consent derived from the 1945-1946 Nuremberg Trials which set out a code of medical ethics that is the framework for medical practice and research worldwide. No one outside the regulating body has the authority to direct physicians and surgeons as to how to practice medicine: not the Chinese dictatorship-loving Justin Trudeau (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVusYrv2jIU), Doug Ford or the Ontario Medical Officer of (Ill)Health. Physicians cannot withhold writing letters of accommodation UNLESS they have a clinical justification! In that case, the patient may seek a second, or even third opinion! And in all cases, patients can refuse treatment on clinical reasons, religion or conscience. To be clear, according to the representative at the CPSO I spoke to there are NO (secret) policies at the CPSO preventing physicians from writing letters of accommodation.
In this post, my aim is to demonstrate that the right of autonomy against coercive medical therapy is prohibited by law, conventions and professional ethics in Ontario and Canada (and, if one can have any confidence in the UN, everywhere else in the world for that matter).
Pages from the College of Physicians and Surgeons Ontario.
Here are choice quotes DIRECTLY from the CPSO’s documents and the law of consent in Ontario to this effect:
Consent to Treatment:
- https://www.cpso.on.ca/Physicians/Policies-Guidance/Policies/Consent-to-Treatment
- Policies of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (the “College”) set out expectations for the professional conduct of physicians practising in Ontario. Together with the Practice Guide and relevant legislation and case law, they will be used by the College and its Committees when considering physician practice or conduct.
- Within policies, the terms ‘must’ and ‘advised’ are used to articulate the College’s expectations. When ‘advised’ is used, it indicates that physicians can use reasonable discretion when applying this expectation to practice.
- Treatment: Anything that is done for a therapeutic, preventative, palliative, diagnostic, cosmetic, or other health-related purpose, and includes a course of treatment, plan of treatment, or community treatment plan.
- Capacity: A person is capable with respect to a treatment if they are able to understand the information that is relevant to making a decision and able to appreciate the reasonably foreseeable consequences of a decision or lack of decision. Capacity to consent to a treatment can change over time, and varies according to the individual patient and the complexity of the specific treatment decision.
Policy
General Expectation
- Physicians must be aware of, and comply with, all of the requirements in the
Health Care Consent Act, 1996 (HCCA).
- Physicians must obtain valid consent before a treatment is provided…
Obtaining Consent
- For consent to be valid, physicians must ensure that it:
- Is obtained from the patient, if they are capable with respect to treatment, or from the patient’s SDM, if the patient is incapable with respect to treatment.
- Relates to the specific treatment being proposed.3
- Is informed.
- Is given voluntarily and not under duress.
- If physicians believe that consent is not being freely given, they must ensure that there has been no coercion.
- Is not obtained through misrepresentation or fraud.
- Physicians must be frank and honest when interacting with patients, including when conveying information about the proposed treatment.
- To ensure that consent is informed, physicians must:
- provide information about the nature of the treatment, its expected benefits, its material risks and material side effects, alternative courses of action and the likely consequences of not having the treatment prior to obtaining consent, which includes:
- providing information that a reasonable person in the same circumstances would require in order to make a decision about the treatment;
- considering the specific circumstances of the patient, on a case-by-case basis, and using their clinical judgment in determining what information to provide; and
- providing information relating to material risks that are relevant for a broad range of patients and those that are particularly relevant for the specific patient;
- engage in a dialogue with the patient or the SDM (as the case may be) about the information specified in 7.a., regardless of whether physicians use supporting documents (such as consent forms, patient education materials or pamphlets) to facilitate the provision of this information;
- provide a response to requests for additional information about the treatment; and
- be satisfied that the information provided is understood and, as such, take reasonable steps to facilitate the comprehension of the information provided.
- While a physician proposing treatment may delegate the act of obtaining consent to another health-care provider, they must be assured that the health-care provider has the knowledge, skill, and judgment required to obtain consent.
- If unsure about whether the consent obtained is valid, physicians must not provide the treatment until assured that valid consent has been obtained.
- provide information about the nature of the treatment, its expected benefits, its material risks and material side effects, alternative courses of action and the likely consequences of not having the treatment prior to obtaining consent, which includes:
The CPSO also provides this on their website: “COVID-19 FAQS FOR PATIENTS”:
https://www.cpso.on.ca/en/Public/Services/Patient-Help-Centre/COVID-19-FAQs-for-Patients
- CPSO strongly encourages all eligible Ontarians to receive a COVID-19 vaccine and booster shot(s) as recommended by your family physician. Immunization is widely recognized as one of the most effective interventions for reducing the impact of infectious diseases.
One notices immediately that physicians and surgeons are not given direction by the CPSO.
Information for physicians
https://www.cpso.on.ca/News/COVID-19-Updates/Information-for-Physicians
→ Nothing of relevance on this page pertains to consent or gives directives to medical practitioners
The law of consent in Ontario
The Ontario Health Care Consent Act lays out the specific grounds in law as to the issue of consent. The law can be found here: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/96h02.
The College of Physicians and Surgeons Ontario makes it plain that medical practitioners have a legal and moral responsibility with respect to free and informed consent to medical therapies and procedures: “Physicians must be aware of, and comply with, all of the requirements in the Health Care Consent Act, 1996 (HCCA)”. Part II is of particular relevance in establishing that patients have total and absolute right over their bodies and therefore any medical therapy or procedure.
Clearly the law of consent is nationwide, and, informed by the Nuremburg trial and codes and subsequent international conventions. It is for this reason that injections or oral vaccines CANNOT be made “mandatory”. There is NO such thing as a mandatory “vaccination”: not in law, ethics or morals in Canada! Not even the Constitution can or says anything about political or administrative authority overriding bodily autonomy and right of mind. In fact, these pre and political rights are ‘doubly institutionalized’ by law in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-15.html.
Section 7 of the Charter is explicit that “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice”. And no “fundamental principle of justice” exists to coerece/compel a medical procedure, which if unconsented is assault by the Criminal Code of Canada. In fact, while upon arrest the police can harvest DNA swabs from the mouth, this does not rise to the matter of coercive treatment under formal detention. It is clear that sections 8, 9 and 10 of the Charter prevent medical assault, which is what unconsented medical treatment is according to the Criminal Code of Canada (see 216, 217 and 219 at https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/C-46.pdf):
8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.
9. Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned.
10. Everyone has the right on arrest or detention
(a) to be informed promptly of the reasons therefor;
(b) to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right; and
(c) to have the validity of the detention determined by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the detention is not lawful.
The Criminal Code also specifies at s.19 that “Ignorance of the law by a person who commits an offence is not an excuse for committing that offence”. One of the most fundamental principles of the so-called Rule of Law is that there are NO privileged exemptions from the application, enforcement and punishment by law. None are immune: not the Justin Trudeau and any in his cabinet; not any premiers; and certainly no one in an administrative capacity. All are bound by the principle of Command Authority not to obey immoral and illegal commands – no matter who from, in ‘peacetime’ or war!
Pulling the licence of physicians?
It is believed, as noted above, wrongly, that physicians/surgeons can lose their licence under the compulsion of the CPSO or the provincial medical officer of (ill)health. Some physicians for illicit conduct during the plan/scamdemic. For instance, one physician in Thornhill had his licence suspended for selling accommodation letters: https://www.thestar.com/local-newmarket/news/2022/01/31/college-of-physicians-and-surgeons-suspends-thornhill-doctor-s-licence.html?rf
Troublingly there is considerable Inquisition-style harassing of physicians and surgeons across Canada. To this end as of January 2022, 40 were/are under investigation for spreading “misinformation”: https://globalnews.ca/news/8524589/ontario-physicians-investigation-covid-19/
Conclusion
EVERYTHING from the CPSO’s own website, and, from law the law of consent in Ontario, is absolute about your right to consent to ANY treatment. No amount of coercion, lies, manipulation and mystification by Justin Trudeau and all involved in this obscene crime against humanity and the imperative of state managers to abolish formal democracy acceptable.
See the links below on ethical guidance for physicians and for knowledge of all persons. Notice that CONSENT is at the core of the responsibility of physicians:
World Medical Association
Declaration of Geneva, 1948
Declaration of Helsinki, 1964
Declaration of Helsinki, 2018
Declaration of Tokyo, 1975
Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights, 2005.
Article 6 – Consent
http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=31058&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html
The Belmont Report.
C. Applications
Given the policy and law of consent, it is astonishing that ethicists and law professors claim the Canadian Constitution and Charter of Rights and Freedoms have provisions that justify a so-called medical mandate, which is in effect medical assault and battery. About their ignorance of their own specialization more must be said by those more expert than myself. Nevertheless, the point of my commentary is unambiguous: Canadians MUST educate themselves about pre and political foundations for their absolute right of autonomy of body and mind from therapeutic state intervention.
The Professor's Corner 