Informed Consent For Vaccine? What An Odd Idea

By | June 24, 2021 | 0 Comments

Since time immemorial, physicians have informed patients – to a varying degree – about possible side effects of proposed treatments. But in 1973, this was codified by the California Supreme Court in Cobbs v Grant. This applies to standard therapy, and especially to experimental therapy. The decision is widely cited by attorneys and physicians. In addition to this legal requirement, medical ethics requires physicians to inform patients as fully as is feasible under the circumstances.

All the Covid-19 vaccines available in the US have received approval only for emergency use. They thus fall in the category of experimental therapy, where informed consent is more stringently required. But even if the vaccines receive full approval, informed consent will still be required.


  1. This being the case, why is not an informed consent form handed to everyone who arrives to take the vaccine?
  2. Why are potential side effects not described?
  3. Why are potential side effects almost absent from the press and social media?
  4. Why do people fear that they will be deplatformed from social media if they mention potential side effects, or even ask questions about them?
  5. Do FDA “emergency authorization” and states of emergency proclaimed by governors remove the requirement for informed consent?
  6. If so, where is this authorized? What statute empowers officials to bypass the requirement for informed consent?

If there is no such statute, then informed consent is still required. So it is understandable that some people are reluctant to get the vaccine. Trust comes from open communication, not from censorship and threats of deplatforming.

Why do letters-to-the-editor and media comments compare those who dare to question vaccines to heretics who question revealed religious truth? Follow the science means follow the science, not parrot pseudo-religious dogma.

Social Widgets powered by