Informed consent is a term often tossed around in the freedom arena, but what does it really mean? I break it down in my video for you → here ←
I’ve made videos in the past about the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN), founded by Del Bigtree. In that video, I discussed a troubling bill they’re working to introduce into state legislatures called a "Bill to Increase Vaccine Confidence." This bill, under the banner of “informed consent” is a big red flag for me.
At first glance, informed consent seems like it grants you the right to say “no” to medical treatments. But what if I told you that, in reality, informed consent is designed not to protect the patient, but to protect the doctor from legal liability?
The American Medical Association (AMA) defines informed consent in medical treatment as both an ethical and legal requirement. They state that patients have the right to receive information and ask questions about recommended treatments so they can make well-considered decisions.
I agree with that. After all, patients should know exactly what they're getting into before undergoing any procedure, treatment, or experiment.
I’ve been teaching about patients’ rights for five years now, especially the right to refuse any medical treatment—whether it’s an experimental procedure or routine care. There’s often a misconception that informed consent only applies to medical experiments. In fact, over the past several years, many interventions—whether it’s masks, nasal swabs, or vaccines—are, in essence, experiments because they have not been approved or licensed by the FDA.
But let’s take an example of a situation that’s not experimental: Imagine you're being asked to consent to surgery for a broken leg. In that case, you still have the right to say “no” to the procedure, regardless of how routine or necessary it may seem. You are entitled to make decisions about your body.
Here’s where the problem with “informed consent” comes into play. There’s a widespread belief that if you simply know the risks associated with a procedure, then you're adequately protected from medical coercion, requirements, and if you undergo the procedure that you will be protected from harm. But that’s not the case. Informed consent is a legal safeguard for the medical professional. It’s designed to ensure that if anything goes wrong, the doctor can't be sued for not disclosing potential risks.
Informed consent documentation serves a dual purpose—it protects you in one way, but it primarily protects the medical professional. If something goes wrong, it’s a shield for the doctor, not necessarily a shield for the patient. Many of you have shared stories of your loved ones suffering from medical procedures they didn’t fully understand. Perhaps they signed something they didn’t realize had such far-reaching consequences.
In my opinion, there needs to be more focus on your right to say “no” to treatment. Rather than talking about informed consent, we should be talking about your right of no consent. That’s a fundamental shift, and one that would empower patients far more than the current narrative does.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: The real story is that it doesn’t matter whether these procedures, interventions, and products are safe or not — what matters is that NO ONE has the RIGHT to FORCE a MEDICAL INTERVENTION on me — or you!
You have the right of no consent. Period.
Remember: language is more than just a means of communication. In the actual world, with legal repercussions, and especially in the context of individual freedom, the language we use can either empower us — or constrain us.
