Dear Subscriber,
California and other jurisdictions are in the process of destroying long held dictums of what constitutes real informed consent. Informed consent is not anything new. It arises out of the common law, to the best of my knowledge.
You might be very surprised to learn that true informed consent requires your doctor to give you BOTH sides of the coin’s information, and YOU make the decision, not him, and not the state. We see that clearly in a New Jersey Supreme Court decision of recent years. While not necessarily binding on other states, it does clearly tell us what informed consent is, and what constitutes informed consent.
Here is text from the case:
160 N.J. 26.
Jean Matthies v. Edward D. Mastromonaco, D.O. (A-9-98)
Argued February 16, 1999 -- Decided July 8, 1999
POLLOCK, J., writing for a unanimous Court.
““The issues before the Court are: whether the doctrine of informed consent requires a doctor to obtain the patient's consent before implementing a nonsurgical procedure; and whether a doctor, in discussing with the patient treatment alternatives that he or she recommends, should discuss medically reasonable alternative courses of treatment that the doctor does not recommend.””
Here is the crux of the entire matter from the court:
““For consent to be informed, the patient must know not only of alternatives that the physician recommends, but of medically reasonable alternatives that the physician does not recommend. Otherwise, the physician, by not discussing these alternatives, effectively makes the choice for the patient. Accordingly, the physician should discuss the medically reasonable courses of treatment, including nontreatment. Largey, supra, 110 N.J. at 213. As we recently wrote: "The negligence lies in the physician's failure to disclose sufficient information for the patient to make an informed decision about the comparative risks of various treatment options."“
Now I’d like to you consider that California AB 2098 will do to this dictum of law. It will require the physician to provide only what the state sanctions as acceptable treatment and/or prevention of COVID.
““2270. (a) It shall constitute unprofessional conduct for a physician and surgeon to disseminate or promote misinformation or disinformation related to COVID-19, including false or misleading information regarding the nature and risks of the virus, its prevention and treatment; and the development, safety, and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines.
(3) “Misinformation” means false information that is contradicted by contemporary scientific consensus to an extent where its dissemination constitutes gross negligence by the licensee.
(4) “Disinformation” means misinformation that the licensee deliberately disseminated with malicious intent or an intent to mislead.
(5) “Disseminate” means the conveyance of information from the licensee to a patient under the licensee’s care in the form of treatment or advice.””
Please consider. The NJ Supreme Court is a citable case and sets a precedent. It says that I must tell a patient even of things I don’t believe in. For example, in my case, if a cancer patient comes to me, I must, and I will tell him that chemo, radiation and surgery is the standard of care and that I recommend that he speak with a specialist in those areas to make his best informed choice. By the same token, if a Lyme disease patient goes to an infectious disease specialist, that specialist “should” tell the patient of ozone and alternatives to antibiotics, even if he does not believe in it. Guess how many do?
But in the case of COVID, I will be forced to tell my patient only that vaccines are safe, effective, and necessary for his health (because otherwise it is misinformation in the eyes of the state), and deny him knowledge of tens of thousands of reported deaths to VAERS and hundreds of thousands of injuries. Why? Because “intent to mislead” now has become political instead of malicious. I can have a dissenting opinion on statin drugs, NSAID drugs, immune system management, etc. but I cannot have a dissenting opinion on COVID vaccines and COVID management. The articles I have are not valid in the eyes of the Pan state, though published in peer review literature, or information from the government (VAERS), or statistics in the news. Pan will COMPEL me to violate medical ethics, the common law and INFORMED CONSENT.
I think you can see that what Senator Pan has done, and has been doing, is in clear violation of centuries old legal dicta regarding informed consent. What parent has been given that kind of informed consent about school vaccines. Senator Pan is leading the undermining of medical rights and ethics sacred for centuries, and seems to be part of the new Progressive Paradigm where the “ends justify the means”. I believe that philosophy is the end of the American experiment and the beginning of the Chinese Communist Party experiment. Which do you prefer?
To Your Excellent Health,
Robert Jay Rowen, MD
PS Please ask yourself how many times, if ever, in your conventional medical office you have been given informed consent of the caliber of the NJ Supreme Court definition? Please let us know here by comment.
Times have not changed. Back in the times of the olde metaphysical and philosophical schools they were burned down because 'some' did not want people to think. Under Metaphysical Law, "you do not fringe upon anyone or upon any living thing." It's a beautiful Law. We have to get rid of those who infringe upon us. Infringement is also a violation. Dr. Robert is doing an excellent job against those who infringe upon us and who violate us.Dr. Roslyn
👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏❤🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏 thank God, someone else gets the true understanding of "informed consent" and how absolutely irresponsible (using nice words) Senator Pan is and continues to be.