The case had to do with flu vaxx, but court ruled that a vaxx cannot be required because it violates informed consent.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (73)
sorted by:
The case had to do with flu vaxx, but court ruled that a vaxx cannot be required because it violates informed consent.
Great. Now do USA.
Even if this doesn't count as legal precedent for other countries, it seems like it would serve as a legal pattern? If this is deemed illegal in Australia, it should be deemed illegal elsewhere for the same reasons?
I would think that if they are citing ‘informed consent’ that it refers to basic Nuremburg code which is international. I notice they are requiring people in NY to waive informed consent (if you go the testing route), which can be revoked in writing at any time. Its super fishy…