The process of administering a vaccine (i.e. giving an intramuscular injection) may cause severe anxiety in some individuals with anxiety disorders or needle-phobia, and/or may be difficult in certain individuals with behavioural disorders.
A tiered approach initially using non-pharmacological measures may assist in facilitating vaccination.
In patients where non-pharmacological techniques have failed, sedation may facilitate safe administration of vaccines in some special circumstances.
Informed consent must be obtained prior to each dose from the patient themselves, or, where the patient does not have capacity to give consent, from the parent, guardian or substitute decision-maker.
Sedation should not be used as a measure to enforce compliance with vaccination requirements.
The entire reason this thread exists is because of the implication that this document is providing guidance for secretly vaccinating people under anesthesia.
The document itself states disputes this.
Maybe people are being vaccinated under anesthesia. But no evidence of this has been provided by this document.
so, if someone is being forced to take it or be on terminal lockdown, lose a job, lose your kids, or starve to death, and then a "needle phobia" moves into this sedation scenario which you consent to, is it still informed consent when you were forced to take it against your will in the first place?
I think the whole exercise has employed intimidation, shame, fear, threat and coercion while under extreme duress. If there is no accounting and punishment for those behind this genocide, there better be in the afterlife, if there is one. That's what I'm holding onto.
I had to scroll down way too far to find this comment. This document is clearly not advocating sneaky pokes while you're getting your appendix out. It's discussing consensual immunization while under sedation for a separate procedure to avoid a second sedation for the shot.
This was in the actual document:
Background
The process of administering a vaccine (i.e. giving an intramuscular injection) may cause severe anxiety in some individuals with anxiety disorders or needle-phobia, and/or may be difficult in certain individuals with behavioural disorders.
A tiered approach initially using non-pharmacological measures may assist in facilitating vaccination.
In patients where non-pharmacological techniques have failed, sedation may facilitate safe administration of vaccines in some special circumstances.
Informed consent must be obtained prior to each dose from the patient themselves, or, where the patient does not have capacity to give consent, from the parent, guardian or substitute decision-maker.
Sedation should not be used as a measure to enforce compliance with vaccination requirements.
https://www.health.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/2022/04/atagi-advice-on-use-of-sedation-for-covid-19-vaccination_1.pdf
LOL so what?
You don't believe they actually follow that crap, do you?
The entire reason this thread exists is because of the implication that this document is providing guidance for secretly vaccinating people under anesthesia.
The document itself states disputes this.
Maybe people are being vaccinated under anesthesia. But no evidence of this has been provided by this document.
That is the question, isn't it? Whom can you trust? Apparently no one, now.
so, if someone is being forced to take it or be on terminal lockdown, lose a job, lose your kids, or starve to death, and then a "needle phobia" moves into this sedation scenario which you consent to, is it still informed consent when you were forced to take it against your will in the first place?
I think the whole exercise has employed intimidation, shame, fear, threat and coercion while under extreme duress. If there is no accounting and punishment for those behind this genocide, there better be in the afterlife, if there is one. That's what I'm holding onto.
It’s informed consent once you sign a document saying you are consenting to be injected.
You can make claims about whether people are being coerced to sign it, but this document has nothing to do with that.
You would still have to agree to get the shot while under sedation. That's no different from a shot while you are awake.
Whether that consent could be considered coerced, I don't know.
I had to scroll down way too far to find this comment. This document is clearly not advocating sneaky pokes while you're getting your appendix out. It's discussing consensual immunization while under sedation for a separate procedure to avoid a second sedation for the shot.
Might as well be a shitpost.