Informed Consent, the Nuremberg Code and the Geneva Conventions

Informed Consent, the Nuremberg Code and the Geneva Conventions

My General Brief in Support of Informed Consent [1] provided a US Government link to a copy of the Nuremberg Code, which was part of the Judgment of the US Military Tribunal at the end of the infamous Nazi Doctor’s Trial.  In a chilling development, the US Government web site no longer links to the Code [2] .

Further information, including more details on the history of the Code:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Code.  You can still read an archived copy here: http://www.cirp.org/library/ethics/nuremberg/.

The Code is a restatement of the law of Informed Consent.  The universal right of Informed Consent has been recognized in US law since at least 1914. [3]

The Code was the basis for convicting the Nazi Doctors of vile atrocities in violation of the universal right of Informed Consent, as crimes against humanity.

So what does the Code have to do with the Geneva Conventions?

In short, under the Geneva Conventions, which regulate the behavior of states during war, a victorious power can try vanquished prisoners for war crimes only if the law specifying the crime also applies to the victorious power.  Thus, by operation of the Geneva Conventions, the governments of the world must honor the Code.  And, as I show in the General Brief, they have, by and large. For example, the UN Bioethics Declaration includes a strong statement of the Right. [4]

The Geneva Conventions are a group of legal doctrines which become the law of any nation ratifying it. Nearly every state has done so.

Which brings us back to the universal right of Informed Consent which allows each person to make, without pressure, coercion, over reach or punishment, the decision to accept or reject any medical treatment.

Vaccination is a medical treatment and, as such, falls under the universal right of Informed Consent.

Further, no subordinate body can make laws or regulations nullifying those of a superior body.

For example, a town cannot overrule a province/state and make an ordinance which cancels out the higher law. A national government cannot, in the same way, require you to abandon the Right that the International Treaty known as the Geneva Convention protects.

The USA, Canada, UK, New Zealand, Australia and over 100 other countries are signatories and ratifying nations of the Geneva Conventions and, as such, are bound by International Law, which supersedes national or local law, to protect that Right and recognize it. The Geneva Conventions do not just protect people during time of war, but rather, define basic humanitarian rights that are binding as international law upon all states.

Rights like the Right of Informed Consent, however, must be correctly asserted in order to have them recognized. We believe that the Advance Vaccine Directive Card does exactly that.

Furthermore, Advance Directives allow you to state your medical preference, which is a powerful legal tool, in telling medical personnel what your wishes are if you cannot speak for yourself or if, acting as a Health Proxy, you must speak for someone else (a child, unconscious spouse or parent, etc.).

Wars have consequences. One of the consequences of World War II was the enshrining of the universal right of Informed Consent in international law, binding on all nations.

Ralph Fucetola JD
President
Institute for Health Research
www.InHeRe.org

https://tinyurl.com/MaskExemption

 

—————

[1]  https://tinyurl.com/GeneralBrief

[2]  Here is the former link from which the Code has been “disappeared.” http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/archive/nurcode.html

[3]  Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hosp.,105 N.E. 92, 93 (N.Y. 1914)

[4]  Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights which provides:  “Article 6 – Consent – 1. 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. The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice. 2. Scientific research should only be carried out with the prior, free, express and informed consent of the person concerned. The information should be adequate, provided in a comprehensible form and should include modalities for withdrawal of consent. Consent may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without any disadvantage or prejudice. Exceptions to this principle should be made only in accordance with ethical and legal standards adopted by States, consistent with the principles and provisions set out in this Declaration, in particular in Article 27, and international human rights law. Article 28 – Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any claim to engage in any activity or to perform any act contrary to human rights, fundamental freedoms and human dignity…” [Emphasis added]  http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=31058&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *