Discover more from Bailiwick News
Compilation PDFs with footnotes
Also I added a few paragraphs to the previous post.
Footnoted PDF compilations of posts published this year. I started focusing on Covid-19 legal issues at the end of January.
January 2022 Bailiwick News (21 pages)
February 2022 Bailiwick News (60 pages)
March 2022 Bailiwick News (51 pages)
April 2022 Bailiwick News (50 pages)
May 2022 Bailiwick News (55 pages)
Also, I added a couple of paragraphs to the prior post about the Project Bioshield Act hearings and informed consent.
See 21 USC 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii) waiving informed consent for unapproved products (2004); 21 USC 360bbb-3(e)(2)(A) waiving informed consent for unapproved use of an approved product (2004). See also 21 USC 355(i)(4) waiving informed consent for experimental products classified by HHS as ‘minimal risk’ drugs (2016); 21 USC 360j(g)(3) waiving informed consent for experimental ‘minimal risk’ devices (2016).
The statutes include language that HHS Secretary may set conditions on EUAs that recipients be informed “of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product, [and] of the consequences, if any, of refusing administration of the product,” which appears to protect a meaningful option to refuse, thus upholding the principle of informed consent as framed by the Nuremberg Code.
However, the Department of Justice and at least one federal judge have interpreted the “consequences of refusal” to mean that recipients may be told by the person demanding that they accept the product, that if they refuse, they will be disciplined, fired or lose their place at school, thus legalizing coercive medical treatment in violation of the Nuremberg Code.