“Freedom of choice” The “informed consent”?

This article has been updated DOPor failure to discussion of the Constitutional Court 21 November 2017, As part of the unconstitutionality of the law decree “Lorenzin” and its conversion

In that context, the Court could deal with the theme of “Freedom of choice” del oath “informed consent”, enough avvesse did attend, as our right, Venetian aggregation, as a body representative of an ethnic minority.

But what difference is there between “Freedom of choice” E “informed consent” ?They are the same thing ?

For “Freedom of choice” We mean the possibility given to the single person to choose something different than a procedure “standard” which it is implemented without the requirement of a consensus.

In the case of vaccinations it would therefore be the possibility of not undergoing them by choosing differently, therefore for the non -vaccination or for the vaccination made with different times and methods.

E’ evident that there may be free choice even when normally the procedure does not require the expression of a consent, that is, when legally the silent assent is legally worth that if you don't say anything we proceed in the path already determined as practices or standard.

In reality this mechanism of “silent consent” it is illegal in the medical field even when there was freedom of choice. And I explain.

THE “informed consent” In medicine it is that principle for which no intervention can be done without the consent of the interested party who must have been previously informed of the purpose and risks of the intervention itself.

THE “informed consent” Not only is it a legal right, But it is a binding obligation for public administrations and for each individual doctor.

art. 5 of the Oviedo Convention literally says: “An intervention in the field of health cannot be carried out until after the person concerned has given free and informed consent. This person first of all receives adequate information on the purpose and nature of the intervention and its consequences and risks. The person concerned can, at any time, freely withdraw consent.”

art. 6 of the Oviedo Convention states that “When, According to the law, a minor does not have the capacity to give consent to an intervention, this cannot be done without the authorization of your representative, of an authority or a person or body designated by law. The opinion of a minor is taken into consideration as an increasingly decisive factor, depending on his age and level of maturity.“.

These people's rights and obligations of physicians are also recognized by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFREU), which applies in every activity that is governed in the framework of the European Union, as Lorenzin said to be vaccinations. However the Charter (CFREU) It contains a “hole” that permits states to avoid its value.

So while “free choice” it can also exist when consent is not foreseen but only possible, The law of “informed consent”, in effect since 1999 (The Oviedo Convention) does not allow that it can be proceeded without the interested party having given consent.

In practice, informed consent is the mechanism opposed to freedom of choice, because it is the obligation to choose.

The vaccination obligation is therefore evidently illegal for the obligation to informed consent, a legally recognized human right and the law since 1999 the Oviedo Convention.

E’ therefore wrong to speak of “Freedom of choice” on the vaccine issue, because you are obliged to choose according to the principle of “informed consent”, because nobody can undergo treatment in the field of medicine without having given consent.

Aggregation Veneta has put this matter to the Constitutional Court, The radical and evident illegality of the lorenzin law's vaccination obligation is evident. Venetian aggregation was the first entity, and the only one to ask this issue, and he did so by representing international rights “national minority” the Venetians, a community of human beings who have the right to discuss these issues otherwise suffering irreparable damage.

THE 21 November 2017 However, the Constitutional Court did not deal with this theme together with many others, It is systematically denied by the state human rights, Citizens are falsely persuaded of the existence of a “compulsory vaccination” that cannot even exist for a general public interest, says the Oviedo Convention, because the human being prevails in any case.