Correcting The Epoch Times & Jeffrey Tucker's Uninformed Claims About "Shared Clinical Decision Making"... Or Are They Simply Engaged In Deception?

Article posted with permission from the author, Suzanne Hamner

In the misty, warm, early hours of dawn, residents near Mt. Hamner were shocked and stunned to hear the loud, low boom of the explosion of the caldera that had no usual warnings via rumbling or tremors preceding previous eruptions. Individuals travelling to work were greeting with the huge plume of ash that became more visible as the daylight expanded under cloud covered skies. Speculation circulated among residents as to the sudden cause of this eruption. But, speculation soon faded to the definitive cause within hours.

I don’t like having to “correct” individuals who write in the “scholarly and popular press” who happened to found a prestigious organization, nor do I like “correcting” those who get “paid” writing for supposed conservative media outlets. But, it is necessary when my “bull manure-o-meter” blows out the measurement dial.

The Epoch Times published a commentary by Jeffrey A. Tucker, founder and president of Brownstone Institute titled, “What is Informed Consent”? Imagine my shock to find out this article conflated proper informed consent, which is a definitive and detailed process, with “shared clinical decision-making. Tucker provided this commentary as a result of Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary appearing on Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan.

Tucker wrote:

It was a classic “gotcha” interview that centered on one main point: the FDA is no longer pushing products on people without their consent and with consultation from the doctor.

The language now is “shared clinical decision-making,” meaning that the patients should make the decision based on the best information they have. We used to call this informed consent. “The worst thing you can do in public health is to put out an absolute universal recommendation in young, healthy kids,” he [Makary] said.

That’s a good principle, one that could be expanded to the entire routine childhood schedule. Now that the COVID shot has been removed and placed into the category of essentially optional, other shots will likely follow. When I was a kid there were two. It will be a herculean task to pare back the vaccine gold rush that happened after all liability for harm was removed in 1986. [Emphasis Mine]

First, the FDA has not stopped pushing products on the public since the CONvid-1984 modified mRNA gene therapy bioweapon shots remain on the market, as well as all childhood immunizations that never went through a randomized, inert placebo-controlled, double blind, sufficiently powered study with extensive follow-up. And, “consultation from the doctor” was removed when pharmacies, drive through vaccine clinics, and health departments were allowed to administer “immunizations” and bioweapon shots.

Tucker equates “shared clinical decision-making” with informed consent. These two things are not the same. The entire process of informed consent has been explained in my book “Informed Consent: An Unalienable Right”. So, where did Tucker obtain the definition for “shared clinical decision-making” that would lead him to mistake this for informed consent? Well, he did not provide a source for his statement – it is only his opinion.

This is what the Center for Disease Control (CDC) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) claims on their website is “shared clinical decision-making”. (To find this information, you will have to expand the “˅” in each section.)

Shared clinical decision-making recommendations are individually based and informed by a decision process between the health care provider and the patient or parent/guardian.

For shared clinical decision-making recommendations, there is no default—the decision about whether or not to vaccinate may be informed by the best available evidence of who may benefit from vaccination; the individual’s characteristics, values, and preferences; the health care provider’s clinical discretion; and the characteristics of the vaccine being considered. There is not a prescribed set of considerations or decision points in the decision-making process.

Generally, ACIP makes shared clinical decision-making recommendations when individuals may benefit from vaccination, but broad vaccination of people in that group is unlikely to have population-level impacts.

CDC defines a health care provider as anyone who provides or administers vaccines: primary care physicians, specialists, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, registered nurses, and pharmacists. [Emphasis Mine]

As one can clearly see, this is NOT the same as informed consent. To even suggest otherwise is deceptive and evidence of being uninformed.

While the CDC claims it has five recommendations for vaccination based on “shared clinical decision-making”, this is the process that is used on everyone now – childhood immunizations and adult immunizations. By the CDC’s own admission, “shared clinical decision-making” is not the same as proper informed consent. How can that be stated? If “shared clinical decision-making” was the same as informed consent, the CDC would use “informed consent”.

This is what the CDC ACIP describes as “shared clinical decision-making” – the decision about whether or not to vaccinate may be informed by the best available evidence of who may benefit from vaccination; the individual’s characteristics, values, and preferences; the health care provider’s clinical discretion; and the characteristics of the vaccine being considered. There is not a prescribed set of considerations or decision points in the decision-making process. Where is the indication the “decision” rests solely with the patient or patient guardian?

Currently, what the public has been subjected to IS “shared clinical decision-making”. This places the health care provider in the position of “joint decision-making”, meaning his “decision” carries as much weight as the patient or patient guardian. In this elevated status, the health care provider is provided the opportunity to engage in coercive, intimidating, fear-mongering, deceitful, fraudulent, possible punitive, and almost forceful tactics to get the patient or patient guardian to “consent” to the provider’s recommendation. If the provider is “recommending” an intervention, he already holds the opinion this is what the patient should do regardless of individual characteristics, values, preferences, or the characteristics of the “vaccine” being considered. As most have experienced, the majority of health care providers hold some “cult-like” belief regarding vaccines – “I recommend this vaccine and it is safe and effective.”

Proper informed consent is patient-oriented and patient-centric – the decision rests with the patient outside of influence from the provider. Coercive, intimidating, fear-mongering, fraudulent, deceitful, punitive, and forceful tactics cannot be used in order to obtain proper informed consent. It is unethical and renders the informed consent null and void.

Remember, informed consent is also the right to refuse.

Moreover, public health already places an absolute universal recommendation for young healthy children regarding immunizations since States “mandate” immunizations based on the CDC-recommended childhood vaccine schedule for attendance in government indoctrination centers (schools), unless the parent obtains a religious, medical or philosophical exemption that is then “approved” by the State. Even then, there is no guarantee the State will honor these exemptions when many States “carve out” loopholes for it to “vaccinate” young healthy children. Some states, such as Florida, have public health laws that allow “forced vaccination” of state residents during emergencies.

Tucker should check the CDC-recommended childhood immunization schedule to know the CONvid-1984 modified mRNA gene therapy bioweapon HAS NOT been removed from that schedule for children. And, he should read the “Notes” on the CDC website to understand when these bioweapon shots are “recommended” for children, including young healthy children.

Tucker also claimed the following:

The presumption behind shared decision-making and informed consent is the undeniable truth that all individuals have unique health needs. We deal with that reality as civilized people by letting people decide what is best for them. That’s why doctors have generally been granted the liberty and right to practice medicine on their own volition in cooperation with patient needs.

…

Even now, informed consent is a fragile principle.

…

Clawing back the principles of voluntarism and freedom in health is clearly going to be a long process.

Shared decision-making occurs between the patient and his family or parents of a minor child. The FACT is informed consent is the undeniable truth that individuals are bestowed by God the authority over their own bodies and their own health needs and that to perform any action upon someone else’s body requires proper informed consent. Without proper informed consent, any action performed on someone else’s body is a CRIME under tort law. All individuals have unique health needs. There are no presumptions. These are facts.

Here’s another dose of FACT. Doctors are “authorized”, by virtue of education, to provide services to individuals in accordance with applicable State laws, and within accepted ethical and moral standards, and within the limits of their education to attend to the health needs of patients. One would not see a general physician perform neurosurgery. Only God can bestow “rights” and “liberty” is the freedom to do what the law permits.

Informed consent is NOT a “fragile principle”. It is an essential, unalienable right held by an individual to determine what is done to his own body. Without the essential, unalienable right of informed consent, an individual is reduced to servitude and enslavement to whomever holds the “control” – government or health care provider.

Individuals did not ever lose their “voluntarism” and “freedom in health” nor the right to informed consent – those are God-given individual unalienable rights. Some of the people were propagandized and brainwashed into relinquishing their God-given individual unalienable rights for the mantras “It’s to benefit everyone; protect others and yourself; it’s the patriotic thing to do”. One does not have to “claw back” what was never lost. One only has to exercise the rights God bestowed with authority and confidence. In some cases, this would mean being noncompliant with mandates and edicts. In others, it would mean defending yourself from treatment by force.

Tucker’s point regarding the shock and surprise of journalists who have been brainwashed and propagandized for decades to even entertain the right of informed consent much less understand and comprehend that right was demonstrated by Margaret Brennan when interviewing Dr. Marty Makary. And, while Tucker does make good points in his commentary, he lacks the basic understanding of informed consent, the process surrounding it, and conflates “shared clinical decision-making” with the right to informed consent. Because of his misunderstanding, those who read his commentary will also make the same mistake.

Informed consent is not difficult to understand and comprehend. There are no gray areas. There are only a few circumstances where informed consent is waived, which I cover in my book, “Informed Consent: An Unalienable Right” and are related to life-threatening emergencies/situations where a patient cannot provide informed consent and a family member cannot be reached. You cannot be held against your will by any healthcare provider or entity. That is a crime as well. Remember, while some claim there is “implied consent”, the informed consent process does not recognize such.

Residents surrounding Mt. Hamner have reported the explosive eruption has now subsided. Scientists at the USGS are still scratching their heads trying to determine why the eruption was not forecast through rumblings and tremors. Those familiar with Mt. Hamner stated, “That’s just how she blows.”

You can find Suzanne on these platforms:

https://rumble.com/user/SuzanneHamner2

https://www.brighteon.com/channels/suzannehamner1/home

Article posted with permission from Sons of Liberty Media