by Vaccine Choice Canada, LifeSite News:

At best, school based vaccination programs could be described as ‘assembly line’ medicine that overrides and ignores children’s legal right to make a voluntary, informed decision about the vaccine treatment they are submitting to. At worst, the Mature Minor doctrine as applied to children captive to public health dictates in the school setting, is a profound violation of the spirit and intent of ethical and legal norms in medicine.

TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

Part 1: Tim Sullivan and the Ontario College of Teachers

In February of 2017, Ontario high school science teacher, Tim Sullivan, was called before a disciplinary committee of the Ontario College of Teachers for unprofessional conduct. The allegations against him are contained in the Notice of Hearing (pdf). He was found guilty and will find out what penalties he faces later in March. The Counsel for the Ontario Teachers has recommended a one-month suspension and anger management training

Sullivan’s concern was about proper informed consent procedures for students. As he told the Globe and Mail reporter, “I’m not an anti-vaxxer,” he said. “I’m pro-informed consent, pro-science, pro-asking questions.” Some of Mr. Sullivan’s students rallied around him by posting an on-line petition of support, which has received over 2,000 signatures to date.

The press (see here, here and here) ran the story under “anti-vaccine” headlines. An observer who attended the Hearing reported to us that the issue of proper informed consent procedures was never addressed at the hearing. Unfortunately, Mr. Sullivan did not have legal representation at the hearing. Apparently each time he attempted to discuss informed consent, the lawyer for the Ontario College of Teachers objected. As the local newspaper reports:

“An[sic] Norfolk science teacher accused of pushing anti-vaccination views, scaring students and berating a public health nurse has been found guilty of professional misconduct.

“Sullivan, a teacher at a Norfolk high school, denied the accusations, but admitted to leaving class once to speak with nurses and to telling one student that a side effect of one of the vaccines was death.

“He maintains that the students weren’t given proper information to consent to the vaccine, including information about potentially serious, but rare, side effects of the shots.”

The two allegations that stand out as most egregious in Tim Sullivan’s disciplinary case are that as a teacher he:

1. ‘harassed’ public health nurses during an in school vaccination day for inquiring whether they provide students with the risk information listed in the vaccine product monograph prior to vaccination,

2. that he “abused” students by frightening them about vaccine risks.

Several obvious questions arise:

1. Why is it “harassment” for a science teacher to ask medical professionals if they obtain informed consent from students prior to injecting them with complex biochemical pharmaceutical products that carry a risk of injury and death for some?

2. Why would it be considered “abuse” of students when a science teacher initiates a discussion about published risks disclosed in the vaccine manufacturer’s product monograph about pharmaceutical products students may receive by injection in the school setting?

3. Why is published information which vaccine manufacturers are required by law to disclose prior to obtaining licensure for their vaccine products, forbidden to be discussed with students in the school setting?

4. Why is the concept of informed consent forbidden to be discussed with students?

Part 2: Informed consent

Informed consent is the ethical cornerstone of the practice of medicine. Every medical professional, including nurses, is taught the theory and application of medical ethics. As such, nurses understand that informed consent is the foundational medical ethic on which ethical medical practice rests. Nurses also understand that obtaining informed consent from the patient prior to any medical procedure, including vaccination, is an essential requirement both legally and ethically.

Every human being, prior to submitting to a medical treatment that carries known risks, has the right to know the risks and side effects that can result from such a medical treatment, has the right to consider the risks and benefits prior to making a voluntary, informed decision and has the right to accept or reject the treatment. Informed consent to medical risk taking is accepted as a basic human right.

The informed consent ethic is enshrined in numerous international treaties to which Canada is signatory. The Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights is one such treaty: ¹

Article 6 – Consent in the treaty reads as follows:

“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 expressed and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice.” ¹

The medical ethic of informed consent is also clearly articulated in provincial health acts referred to below.

A. Ontario’s Health Protection and Promotion Act

It is a widely documented medical fact that vaccines can and do cause a range of side effects and injuries, including death in some people. ² A particular procedure for informing consenting persons of certain adverse events is set out in Ontario’s Health Protection and Promotion Act³, Section 38

Read More @ LifeSiteNews.com