Consent

Un-informed Consent

Did mass coercion make informed consent to the Covid jabs impossible?

‘I had my shots but I’m not having any more’ is a phrase I’ve heard more than once.

A little over a year ago – I know, it feels longer – thousands marched the streets of Australia protesting the mandates. I was one of them.

In many cases, the mandates were facilitated through emergency powers enacted by the state governments. But some sectors (for example Universities) and employers (for example airlines) brought the mandates in all by themselves.

It makes me wonder, if the government and employers tried it on again, how many would march the streets in protest now?

This is an important question as none of the legislative powers that made the ‘mandate nightmare’ possible have been wound back. And only a handful of workers have successfully defeated the mandates.

Mandates and Bodily Autonomy

Meanwhile, the mandate hangover continues…

I recently received a call from a worker who was ‘mandated’ to have a booster. They wanted to discuss options.

‘Just say no,’ I offered. A simple option, possibly not without consequence, but one I would place top of my list. Saying ‘no’ in the current climate is far more likely to be accepted than it was twelve months ago. And I know people who have successfully done so, without losing their jobs.

But there’s something more important at stake: Who owns your body?

I asked the caller, ‘Do you really want to continue to work for an employer who is going to require you to have a jab every six months just so you can earn a living?’

It’s a question we should all ask because under those conditions, there is no bodily autonomy (that is, your employer owns your body) and it’s impossible to give legally valid informed consent. Being coerced into having a jab, to keep your job, is not informed consent. It’s the antithesis of informed consent.

In considering the requirements for legally valid informed consent – which can only be given voluntarily and in the absence of undue pressure, coercion, or manipulation – it becomes clear that anyone ‘mandated’ is unable to give informed consent. Why? Because mandates and informed consent are mutually exclusive. If someone is being told they have to have a jab to keep their job then informed consent is not possible, regardless of whether they are willing to receive it for those reasons.

Many understood this, and the seriousness of the new ‘no jab, no pay’ territory we were entering. Tragically, thousands of people walked from jobs and careers that spanned decades, in what might be the biggest government-enforced-mass-exodus of a skilled working population. Even more tragically, hundreds of thousands, perhaps more, were coerced into having the jab to keep their job. And let’s not talk about those who were injured or worse.

This, in a so-called ‘free’ country.

There was No Informed Consent

Informed consent was not just ‘impossible’ for the mandated. I have serious doubts about whether anyone in Australia gave informed consent to the Covid injections.

Let me explain.

During the Covid years, Australians were subject to politicians and medical technocrats who told us how miserable our lives were going to be if we didn’t get vaccinated. The disgust was tangible, and the message was clear. Somehow we allowed Australian authorities to subject us to the ‘largest clinical trial, the largest global vaccination trial ever’ despite treaties, agreements, and codes of conduct that are supposed to protect against such things. I believe the ’95 per cent’ Covid ‘vaccination’ rate was achieved through undue pressure, coercion, and manipulation of the Australian population.

Were you told you wouldn’t be able to attend weddings, funerals, birthdays, social events, schools, or community services if you didn’t get vaccinated? Undue pressure.

Were you told that you would be unable to work, return home, travel, visit sick relatives, enter a hospital, or obtain medical care if you didn’t get vaccinated? Coercion.

Were you told it was your duty, your social contract, and a way to ‘love your neighbour’ by getting vaccinated? Manipulation.

‘The vast majority of people taking vaccines did it under duress,’ said Dr. Peter McCullough on his recent visit to Australia. ‘They did it under duress. They had to try to keep their job or maintain their position… and my heart is broken that so many people have taken the vaccine, and so many have been harmed.’

International Coercion

This same pattern of pressure, coercion, and manipulation was seen around the world.

In the UK, the Lockdown Files revealed how the government employed military-grade psyop-style strategies to make sure they ‘frightened the pants off everyone’ into compliance.

‘You’ve got to look at the definition of coercion,’ explains UK Doctor of Psychology Christian Buckland. ‘The Encyclopedia Britannica states, “It’s the threat or use of punitive measures against states, groups or individuals in order for them to undertake or desist from specified actions… and those threats include psychological pressure and social ostracism.”’

Buckland continues, ‘This is really important because the (Lockdown Files) prove that psychological pressure was applied to the public. That means any consent to immunisation that was given, whether they asked you or didn’t, or if you agreed or didn’t agree… was not valid.’

Importance of Consent

‘So what?’ you may ask. Well, if consent was not valid then who is accountable?

Buckland explains, ‘One of the most important questions that is going to emerge from this issue is going to be one of accountability and liability for all the people who have been greatly injured or been left bereft, because of the Covid vaccine. Because they gave their consent for an injection that they couldn’t give consent to. There has to be some form of accountability, based on the fact that no one could give informed consent.’

This issue of informed consent is about so much more than bodily autonomy. It is inextricably linked to medical freedom… and more.

‘Your medical freedom is inextricably linked to your social freedom and your economic freedom,’ says Dr McCullough. ‘When that medical freedom is broken, and you begin to do things to your body for other reasons, outside of medicinal reasons, it infringes upon these other circles of freedom, and this can cascade down. We have to bring ourselves out of this.’

I agree.

We, the people, need to re-draw the line in the sand. The line where the government ends and our bodily autonomy begins. The ‘informed consent’ line.

Informed consent isn’t some optional extra in medical ethics. It is foundational in medicine and foundational to freedom.

Without it, we lose far more than the right to refuse an experimental jab.

___

Dr. Julie Sladden believes many Australians were coerced to receive medical products during the Covid years. If you’d like to support her caffeine-inspired writing, you can shout her a coffee here.

Originally published at The Spectator. Photo by little plant on Unsplash.

We need your help. The continued existence of the Daily Declaration depends on the generosity of readers like you. Donate now. The Daily Declaration is committed to keeping our site free of advertising so we can stay independent and continue to stand for the truth.

Fake news and censorship make the work of the Canberra Declaration and our Christian news site the Daily Declaration more important than ever. Take a stand for family, faith, freedom, life, and truth. Support us as we shine a light in the darkness. Donate now.

14 Comments

  1. Jim Twelves 18 May 2023 at 8:24 am - Reply

    Dr Julie, magnificent! Your forensic analysis of our shared, recent history is compelling. Thank you. Joining the dots, this story played out across the world, certainly the western world. The orchestration, the coordination, across so many counties and cultures was the piece of the picture that woke (sorry about that word) me up.
    I am looking for the fingerprints, that can stand up in court, of the people and organizations that ‘made it happen’. I can’t believe that health authorities and governments around the world simply all struck up the same tune at the same time in perfect harmony by chance. Its like asking me to accept in the theory of evolution as fact!

    • Kim Beazley 18 May 2023 at 8:52 am - Reply

      “I can’t believe that health authorities and governments around the world simply all struck up the same tune at the same time in perfect harmony by chance.”

      Jim. it was a novel virus which was killing people and causing serious illness at an alarming rate on a global scale. And initially we had no medical defence. Why would you not draw the logical conclusion that a global response was sought by health officials and political leaders?

      This form of dark cynicism does nobody any good. Especially Christians.

      • Jeannie 23 May 2023 at 3:39 am - Reply

        Especially Christians, Kim? Are we not to be the ones to champion the poor, the marginalised, the the rejected? Are we not to open our mouths when we see injustice?

        A global response is one thing; a one-size-fits-all approach, with imposition of a treatment on every citizen is another thing entirely.

        • Kim Beazley 23 May 2023 at 1:43 pm - Reply

          What does having a cynical mindset which suspects a dark worldwide conspiracy intended to deceive the whole world have to do with championing “the poor, the marginalised, the the rejected”? There is simply no logical connection. In fact, to think cynically like that is the OPPOSITE of helping the poor and needy, as it is exclusively self-centred, not other-centred.

          And your reduction of a very complex issue to a simplistic description of “a one-size-fits-all approach” says nothing of substance.

  2. Kim Beazley 18 May 2023 at 9:00 am - Reply

    On the whole Dr Sladden makes her case against mandates in a way that leads to honest debate. But why does she continually bang on in every single article with the quote from former Federal Health Minister Greg Hunt regarding “the largest clinical trial, the largest global vaccination trial ever”, when she knows that it’s taken totally out of context and is designed to infer a lie: that the vaccines had not been through the normal rigorous clinical trial procedures?

    This gross and blatant dishonesty spoils everything else. As does her continued devotion to the notorious anti-vaxxer, Dr Peter McCullough.

    • Jeannie 23 May 2023 at 3:58 am - Reply

      Notorious anti-vaxxer? Well-credentialed medical professional with data, experience, and knowledge to urge caution on a novel treatment that was rushed to the market.

      Can you provide the context for Greg Hunt’s comment that makes it better? Can you also show me a single properly conducted, double-blind, fully evaluated clinical trial on the efficacy, or the safety on the mRNA technology? Especially important to me would be a long-term summary of outcomes from people who received this treatment.
      I’m old enough to remember thalidomide, that caused years of damage to unborn babies before it was withdrawn from use. And now we rightly are very cautious when it comes to giving any medicines to pregnant women. This includes avoiding the use of newer anti-hypertension drugs that have no long term data to support their use, in favour of older, well-established ones because they are lower risk. And yet….doctors and obstetricians recommended this treatment? It’s beyond tragic that many more women had miscarriages, early births, and other issues after getting it.

  3. Kaylene Emery 18 May 2023 at 10:03 am - Reply

    Julie you make me proud again , to be an Australian woman . You ignite my hope that the medical profession might yet rise out of the septic tank into which they have been indoctrinated, or simply choose through expediency.
    God in His wisdom choose you – for such a time as this.

    • H Harrison 18 May 2023 at 11:54 am - Reply

      … and may the church and other Christian organizations come out from under the cloak of the code of silence and denial, to seek and speak the truth in love! So many are hurting badly.

  4. Emmy 18 May 2023 at 2:22 pm - Reply

    Great article Julie and so, so true. How many would have gladly taken the jab if there wasn’t any coercion or mandates and other treatments were not banned? I suspect a lot less. Such a shameful period in our history. May the Lord bring good things out of this awful situation.

    • Kaylene Emery 18 May 2023 at 9:18 pm - Reply

      Emmy I really appreciate your temperate communication’s. Thank you.

  5. Stephen Lewin 18 May 2023 at 10:09 pm - Reply

    pray that Dr Julie gets the respect due her from authorities whether, they be Christian or otherwise., so that her articles are published and read everywhere, this is an important issue that needs to be administered correctly .Informed consent was not given from all the evidence we have from our medical friends and especially the way Indigenous people have been treated in this regard has been and still is very wrong.

  6. Jeannie 23 May 2023 at 2:25 am - Reply

    It’s heartening to see this opinion on this site. I have often felt alone in churches after standing against the mandate, which cost me my nursing career.
    On the other hand, it’s sad to see people resorting to name-calling (notorious anti-vaxxer, for example) when Dr McCullough is a very experienced, well-published and respected physician, and is one of thousands of doctors to speak out against this particular treatment. It’s also ridiculous to maintain the pretence that the usual rigorous clinical trials happened. This treatment was developed and released ‘at the speed of science’, whatever that nonsensical term means! A novel virus, perhaps. But there WAS a medical treatment and it quickly got demonised and banned in western nations, while other countries had great success with it.
    Proper and open debate is what is needed. An honest assessment of the available post-market data, and the original Pfizer documents, and listening to people’s stories will all go a long way to helping this issue be understood.

  7. Jeannie 23 May 2023 at 3:36 am - Reply

    You pose the question wondering how many people would march in the streets if they faced another round of mandates. Yes, I too wonder the same thing. Many people seem to have just moved on, and want society to forgive and forget the awful negative impacts of lockdowns (increased domestic violence, suicide, loneliness, despair, unemployment, increase in other medical issues, etc). Others have grown weary at not being heard, or worse, marginalised for taking a stand. I hope that this whole episode has made more people aware that freedoms are hard won, and were too easily surrendered. That there are some medical professionals who are not fit for service, and some medicines that we may have been told are good, and safe, and effective, but are actually far from it. If the medical system gets a big shake up, I’ll be glad.

    What also comes to mind is the proposal many years ago for a national identity card. This was soundly rejected by the people of Australia. Now we have digital identity profiles, with digital vaccine passports, and myGov accounts where everything is conveniently located [for hackers and ne’er-do-wells to access] in one place. All this has happened and the people of Australia don’t bat an eyelid! I might be cynical, but it seems that stealth is a practice employed by big bully organisations and governments to achieve their ends regardless of the average Joe’s opinions.

Leave A Comment

Recent Articles

Use your voice today to protect

Faith · Family · Freedom · Life

MOST POPULAR

ABOUT

The Daily Declaration is an Australian Christian news site dedicated to providing a voice for Christian values in the public square. Our vision is to see the revitalisation of our Judeo-Christian values for the common good. We are non-profit, independent, crowdfunded, and provide Christian news for a growing audience across Australia, Asia, and the South Pacific. The opinions of our contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of the Daily Declaration.
Read More.

MOST COMMENTS

HALL OF FAME

BROWSE TOPICS

BROWSE GENRES