Informed Consent


The UK Online neither condemns nor condones the taking of vaccines. That is down to the sovereign persons choice. What we do believe is that sovereign folk should be given as much information as they need to make an informed decision on the subject.

Without getting into arguments on the subject, the following information is supplied to help empower people with the decision they come to.

In view of a recent court case:

  • Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board, 2015

The BMJ put forward the following information to it’s readers.

Questions to ask to ensure the patient is giving legally valid consent

  • Does the patient know about the material risks of the treatment that is being proposed?
  • What sort of risks would a reasonable person in the patient’s circumstances want to know?
  • What sort of risks would this particular patient want to know?
  • Does the patient know about reasonable alternatives to this treatment?
  • Has reasonable care been taken to ensure that the patient actually knows all of this information?
  • Do any of the exceptions to my duty to disclose information apply?
  • Have I properly documented the consent process?

If you are against being vaccinated (irrespective of the reasons) the first point of the BMJ’s advice is where your strength of argument and control of events lies.

As most health professions are aware, the inserts of the vaccines are never given to, or are covered in conversation prior to the vaccine being administered. That could be seen as a clear breech of the first point that the BMJ has put forward under the guidance they have given out. Irrespective of legal issues, this may effect professionals by their own rules for their particular profession if not followed correctly.

If you feel strongly about not having to have a vaccination, the above information will help you as a sovereign person to keep control of your sovereign choice.

Make use of it !

The legal case

Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board, 2015

On 1 October 1999, Nadine Montgomery gave birth at Bellshill Maternity Hospital, Lanarkshire. As a result of complications during delivery, her baby was born with severe disabilities. Montgomery had diabetes; patients with diabetes are more likely to have large babies and have a 9–10% risk of shoulder dystocia during vaginal delivery. The doctor responsible for her care did not advise her of this possibility as she believed the risk was very small. If Montgomery had been aware of this risk she may have opted for a caesarean section, which was not, in the doctor’s opinion, in her interest. Montgomery sought damages alleging negligence.

The Supreme Court judgement ruled that the doctor should have advised Montgomery of the substantial risk of shoulder dystocia. The doctor made a value judgement about whether a caesarean section was in the patient’s interest; the patient was entitled to make her own value judgement, be given information enabling her to make the decision, and her choice should have been respected.

Source: The BMJ

The issue of coercion


A competent adult always has the right to refuse treatment, regardless of personal opinions on whether the patient/employee is making the right or wrong decision. A patient/employee should not agree to a treatment because of subtle pressures (e.g. they want to please the treating healthcare professional, or want to avoid being seen as awkward or stupid because they do not understand or disagree with what has been said). Patients/employees can be overawed in a hospital environment — they may be frightened speak out, they may see that everyone is busy and just think it will save time to be passive and compliant. If the consequences of the patient’s choice could be dangerous or damaging, then it should be determined that they realise this, but if they say ‘no’, that is their choice.

Foot Note:

An article in the International Business Times points out that:

Patients who suffered brain damage as a result of taking a swine flu vaccine are to receive multi-million-pound payouts from the UK government.

The government is expected to receive a bill of approximately £60 million, with each of the 60 victims expected to receive around £1 million each.

With further information pointing out:

Among those affected are NHS medical staff, many of whom are now unable to do their jobs because of the symptoms brought on by the vaccine. They will be suing the government for millions in lost earnings.

The full article can be found here.

It’s your choice to make…