Tag: consent

Belgian Government Will Intervene In Cases Where Prostitutes Refuse Sexual Acts Too Often

A new law in Belgium celebrated by activists for providing a “labour contract” to prostitutes will also enable their pimps to punish them with a government mediator if they refuse sex more than 10 times in a six-month period. The Belgian Parliament voted for the law on May 3, with 93 in favor, zero opposed, and 33 abstentions.  

The legislation is being touted as a win by UTSOPI, the Belgium Union of Sex Workers, which had lobbied extensively for the legislation. The law outlines that prostitutes will receive health insurance, a pension, maternity and holiday leave, and unemployment benefits. Their pimps will be forced to provide them with a “safety button” to use for emergencies.

Their website claims that the law “is a historic step in the battle for sex workers’ rights” and will create a “respectful, fair relationship” between prostitutes and their pimps, with UTSOPI spokesperson Daan Bauwens telling media that he believes “Belgium is really demonstrating that it aims to protect sex workers, regardless of any moral judgements about the profession people may have.”

Prostitutes are to be granted “rights” to refuse sexual acts, stop sexual acts, perform sexual acts in the manner they prefer, and refuse to sit behind Amsterdam-style windows (public facing windows where prostitutes are on display). However, should a prostitute use these “rights” 10 times within six months, their pimp can then call on a government mediator to intervene.

All pimps must have a registered office and apply to the Belgian government for approval to offer contracts to prostitutes. The contracts will be disguised as hotel-restaurant-café (HoReCa) contracts so that prostitutes can remain anonymous.

Keep reading

DISTURBING FDA LOOPHOLE ALLOWS SCIENTISTS TO DO EXPERIMENTS ON HUMANS WITHOUT INFORMED CONSENT

An FDA rule change published on December 21, 2023 solidifies that scientists are allowed to conduct human experiments without informed consent, as long as the research poses “minimal risk” and includes “appropriate safeguards to protect the rights, safety, and welfare of human subjects.” Investigation by ICAN’s legal team revealed that efforts to undermine informed consent protections have long been in the works, going back to at least 1962. ICAN has filed a FOIA request to dig deeper into this violation of one of our most basic human rights.

Informed consent is one of the bedrocks of human rights. It requires that (1) you be fully informed of the risks and benefits of any intervention or procedure and (2) that you consent to participate without coercion of any kind. Unfortunately, it turns out that Congress and our federal health authorities have been working to weaken informed consent protections for over 60 years!

On the heels of FDA’s new draft guidance which further weakens the already paltry clinical trial requirements for vaccine approval, FDA is once again implementing rules that take aim at informed consent protections. On December 21, 2023, FDA issued a final rule that “allows an exception from the requirement to obtain informed consent when a clinical investigation poses no more than minimal risk to the human subject and includes appropriate safeguards to protect the rights, safety, and welfare of human subjects.”

An investigation by ICAN’s attorneys revealed that back in 1962, Congress passed an amendment to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act which directed HHS to create regulations that required researchers to “obtain the consent of such human beings or their representatives, except where they deem it not feasible or, in their professional judgment, contrary to the best interests of such human beings.” (Emphasis added.)

In 1981, both the FDA and HHS issued updated federal regulations regarding “The Protection of Human Subjects.” HHS’s regulations for example “exempt[ed]  broad categories of research which normally present little or no risk of harm to subjects,” such as “study of data, documents, records and specimens.”

Keep reading

The Era of Informed Consent is Over

In a significant blow to patient autonomy, informed consent has been quietly revoked just 77 years after it was codified in the Nuremberg Code.

On the 21st of December 2023, as we were frantically preparing for the festive season, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a final ruling to amend a provision of the 21st Century Cures Act. This allowed 

…an exception from the requirement to obtain informed consent when a clinical investigation poses no more than a minimal risk to the human subject…

This ruling went into effect on January 22nd, 2024, which means it’s already standard practice across America. 

So, what is the 21st Century Cures Act? It is a controversial Law enacted by the 114th United States Congress in January 2016 with strong support from the pharmaceutical industry. The Act was designed to

…accelerate the discovery, development, and delivery of 21st-century cures, and for other purposes [?]…[emphasis added]

Some of the provisions within this Act make for uncomfortable reading. For example, the Act supported: 

High-risk, high-reward research [Sec. 2036].

Novel clinical trial designs [Sec. 3021]

Encouraging vaccine innovation [Sec. 3093].

This Act granted the National Institutes of Health (NIH) legal protection to pursue high-risk, novel vaccine research. A strong case could be made that these provisions capture all the necessary architecture required for much of the evil that transpired over the past four years.

Overturning patient-informed consent was another stated goal of the original Act. Buried under Section 3024 was the provision to develop an

Informed consent waiver or alteration for clinical investigation.

Scholars of medical history understand that the concept of informed consent, something we all take for granted today, is a relatively new phenomenon codified in its modern understanding as one of the critical principles of the Nuremberg Code in 1947. It is inconceivable that just 77 years after Nuremberg, the door has once again opened for state-sanctioned medical experimentation on potentially uninformed and unwilling citizens.  

Keep reading

New York’s Proposed Minor Consent Law ‘Dangerous’ and ‘Misleading,’ Critics Say

New York state lawmakers are weighing legislation that would allow any child or teen under 18 to seek out and consent to medical treatment — including vaccines, dental procedures, hospitalization and even surgery — without parental consent, as long as the minor appears to have the mental capacity for making that decision.

Assembly Bill A6761, introduced by New York Assemblymember Karines Reyes (D-Bronx), also would allow Medicaid funds to pay for procedures and drugs administered to children.

Proponents of the legislation, such as the American Civil Liberties Union of New York, say the measure is about ensuring all youth have access to quality care.

But critics, including John Gilmore, founder and executive director of the nonprofit Autism Action Network, said the bill is dangerous.

“The bill’s biggest problem,” Gilmore told The Defender, “is that it allows any medical procedure to be done to children of any age without parental knowledge or consent. That’s the kicker.”

Gilmore said the bill has another problem, too: The “active summary” statement on the official New York Assembly website says it “allows homeless youth to give effective consent to certain medical, dental, health, and hospital services.”

But Gilmore said that statement is “deliberately misleading” because the bill’s text applies to more than just “homeless” youth seeking “certain” services.

Keep reading

PROTECT Act Could Require Removal of All Existing Porn Online

Is Congress really trying to outlaw all sex work? That’s what some people fear the Preventing Rampant Online Technological Exploitation and Criminal Trafficking (PROTECT) Act would mean.

The bill defines “coerced consent” to include consent obtained by leveraging “economic circumstances”—which sure sounds like a good starting point for declaring all sex work “coercive” and all consent to it invalid. (Under that definition, in fact, most jobs could be considered nonconsensual.)

Looking at the bill as a whole, I don’t think this is its intent, nor is it likely be enforced that way. It’s mainly about targeting tech platforms and people who post porn online that they don’t have a right to post.

But should the PROTECT Act become law, its definition of consent could be used in other measures that do seek to target sex work broadly. And even without banning sex work, it could still wreak major havoc on sex workers, tech companies, and free speech and internet freedom more widely.

There are myriad ways it would do this. Let’s start by looking at how it could make all existing online porn against the law.

Keep reading

Some Service Members Say They Were ‘Coerced’ Into Taking COVID-19 Vaccine: Survey

In an independent survey conducted by the author last fall, 229 individuals currently serving in the U.S. military voluntarily participated by responding to a multitude of questions. Results helped to reveal the difficulties faced by some members of the U.S. Armed Forces who were confronted by Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin’s August 2021 military vaccine mandate.

Part of the anonymous questionnaire addressed the COVID-19 vaccine status of the participating service member, various details about the now-rescinded military vaccine mandate, as well as the deliberate coercion faced by many who opposed it.

All branches of the military as well as enlisted and officer ranks responded to the survey. Survey participants served in the military for an average of about 16 years.

Out of the 229 participants, 169 were active duty service members. Eighty-seven percent, or 199, were unvaccinated against COVID-19. Of the 30 who were vaccinated, only two said they had wanted to do it.

Twenty out of 30 individuals who admitted taking the vaccine claim they were injured by the vaccine. Ninety-three percent of the participants said they know someone they believe has been injured by the COVID-19 vaccine.

The Epoch Times spoke to two of the survey’s participants who used a pseudonym out of concern about reprisals. Both emphasized that their views don’t reflect those of the Department of Defense, or the Department of the Army and Department of the Air Force, respectively.

Keep reading

The Loosening of Rules on Informed Consent

On January 22, 2024, amendments to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations (21 CFR 50) covering Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) were finalized and implemented. The amendments added a new section 50.22 that allows for exceptions to informed consent requirements for minimal risk research. 

While the addition of section 50.22 harmonizes FDA IRB regulations with the Dept of Health and Human Services (DHHS) IRB regulations (known as the Common Rule: 45 CFR 46) that are administered by the Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP), the handling of the Covid shots over the past 3-4 years should raise red flags. 

Currently, I am chair of an IRB at a private-not-for-profit outpatient healthcare agency that does research in which vulnerable populations are recruited. As such, I’m well aware that the foundational documents from which the OHRP developed the regulatory framework under which IRBs operate are the Nuremberg Code and the Belmont Report. 

Back in October 2023, my first Brownstone post, Where is the Office for Human Research Protections, asked the question as to how the approval of a Phase 3 research pharmaceutical product (mRNA vaccines) could be done without the formal involvement of IRBs. Specifically, the Nuremberg Code, covering informed consent, and the Belmont Report, covering among other elements, bodily autonomy, which are foundational to oversight of human subject research, and the requirement for a data and safety monitoring plan were completely discarded. Was the OHRP consulted for its input, and if not, did anyone from OHRP express concern? Given that these protections were put in place in response to medical atrocities (the Holocaust and the Tuskegee experiments), you’d think that they’d be sacrosanct. Think again!

While not providing a direct answer to the question I posed, Debbie Lerman’s posts, Covid mRNA Vaccines Required No Safety Oversight and Covid mRNA Vaccines Required No Safety Oversight: Part Two, and Sasha Latypova’s post, EUA Countermeasures Are Neither Investigational nor Experimental, provided a detailed roadmap as to the actions that were actually taken in implementing Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for the Covid shot. To me, the most significant finding was that the legality of using EUA in civilian populations is rather tenuous, at best. 

With the foregoing as a backdrop, let’s get into the nuts and bolts of the new FDA regulations, noting that in addition to being chair of an IRB, I am also a retired physician, who has been in the healthcare field for 50 years. This includes 19 years of direct patient care in a rural setting as a Board Certified Internist, 17 years of clinical research at a private-not-for-profit outpatient healthcare agency, and over 35 years of involvement in public health, and health systems infrastructure and administration. As such, I bring a breadth of training, knowledge, and experience to this matter that is fairly unique.

Keep reading

CRIMINAL FDA DECLARES INFORMED CONSENT NULL AND VOID

If we’ve learned one thing over the last three years, it’s that abiding by centuries-old medical ethics, like asking questions, is what White Supremacists™ and domestic terrorists do.

Via the soon-to-be-memory-holed American Medical Association webpage on informed consent:

“Informed consent to medical treatment is fundamental in both ethics and law. Patients have the right to receive information and ask questions about recommended treatments so that they can make well-considered decisions about care. Successful communication in the patient-physician relationship fosters trust and supports shared decision making.

The process of informed consent occurs when communication between a patient and physician results in the patient’s authorization or agreement to undergo a specific medical intervention.”

That was then.

This is now, when respecting the Science™ requires that you shut your filthy masked mouth and do whatever corporate media news actors and Public Health™ technocrats tell you to do.

Via Federal Register:

“The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, the Agency, or we) is issuing a final rule to amend its regulations to implement a provision of the 21st Century Cures Act (Cures Act). This final rule allows an exception from the requirement to obtain informed consent when a clinical investigation poses no more than minimal risk to the human subject and includes appropriate safeguards to protect the rights, safety, and welfare of human subjects. The final rule permits an institutional review board (IRB) to waive or alter certain informed consent elements or to waive the requirement to obtain informed consent, under limited conditions, for certain FDA-regulated minimal risk clinical investigations.”

Branch COVIDians surely don’t care about any of this, as they gave up long ago exercising their former right to be fully informed of medical experimentation risks anyway. In fact, they brag about their ignorance and apathy and doglike obedience as if they are virtues.

Listen to the New York NAACP lady explain:

“We must take the vaccine. Now, I’m going to tell you a personal story off script. So, today right after this I am going to have an infusion, and I’m going to have an infusion because I want to make sure that the cancer that was in my body does not return. I’m not asking what’s in the infusion, I’m not looking up all of the ingredients in the infusion, I am sticking out my arm and I am taking the infusion, and that’s what we have to do.” [seal-like clapping from the masked retards behind her]

Keep reading

Archaeology’s woke trend: Obtain consent from someone who’s dead to study their bones

There’s an eerie new theory filling academia’s ivied walls – the living and the dead are the same. This latest argument against the use of human skeletal remains in research and teaching, which I’ve come across in person (from students who attended my talk at Brown University, an elite Ivy League college), proposes that the only ethical treatment of skeletal collections is to treat the dead like the living. I’ve seen this same argument, which is applied to prehistoric and historic anthropological collections used to reconstruct past peoples’ lives, in conference programs and on museum websites.

Those researchers interested in examining past populations through the study of human remains, thus, should be required to follow the same ethical guidelines as medical researchers who conduct their work on living people. We need to gather consent forms. The Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History took down their Written in Bone website that explored ways anthropologists looked at 17th-century residents of the Chesapeake Bay Area, which included colonists, African slaves, and European immigrants. This was because it had come to their attention that they had no consent forms from these people who died 300-years ago!

Interested in studying the past through bones? Now, you must also provide evidence that there are safeguards in place to avoid harming these long-dead individuals. And, researchers of past populations, regardless of how old these collections are, should be required to incorporate HIPAA (the law that provides living patients with privacy concerning their medical records) regulations into their research methods. Of course, it’s a bit difficult to get consent from someone who’s dead. Yet, the repatriation and reburial activists see this as just the right tool to bury the zombified remains whose, last wishes they assume, were to be reburied.

Could there be other tactics to get around these ethical issues? Maybe universities should start employing spirit mediums to run seances to ensure that we can connect with the dead, ask them questions, and get that much-needed consent form signed; can a ghost sign a paper?

Keep reading

UN report calls for decriminalization of all sexual activity, including between adults and children

A new report from the United Nations has called for all forms of drug use and sexual activity to be decriminalized globally.

Written by the International Committee of Jurists (ICJ), UNAIDS and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), the report was released on International Women’s Day, with the goal of guiding “the application of international human rights law to criminal law.” Called the “8 March principles,” the report calls for offenses related to “sex, drug use, HIV, sexual and reproductive health, homelessness and poverty” to be decriminalized.

The United Nations experts say that criminalizing offenses related to these issues constitute an attack on human rights.

“Criminal law is among the harshest of tools at the disposal of the State to exert control over individuals… as such, it ought to be a measure of last resort however, globally, there has been a growing trend towards overcriminalization,” Ian Seiderman, Law and Policy Director at ICJ, said in the press release. “We must acknowledge that these laws not only violate human rights, but the fundamental principles of criminal law themselves.”

While on the surface, it may seem relatively uncontroversial, the report calls for sex between adults and minors to be decriminalized, so long as the minors “consent”:

With respect to the enforcement of criminal law, any prescribed minimum age of consent to sex must be applied in a non-discriminatory manner. Enforcement may not be linked to the sex/gender of participants or age of consent to marriage. Moreover, sexual conduct involving persons below the domestically prescribed minimum age of consent to sex may be consensual, in fact, if not in law. In this context, the enforcement of criminal law should reflect the rights and capacity of persons under 18 years of age to make decisions about engaging in consensual sexual conduct and their right to be heard in matters concerning them.

Pursuant to their evolving capacities and progressive autonomy, persons under 18 years of age should participate in decisions affecting them, with due regard to their age, maturity and best interests, and with specific attention to non-discrimination guarantees.

Minors, of course, cannot truly consent to sex with an adult — something these so-called experts should know. 

Keep reading