Section 10(c) of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities (Vic) states as follows:
A person must not be ... (c) subjected to medical or scientific experimentation or treatment without his or her full, free and informed consent.
The effect of these words are staggering. Not only is consent required, but it must also be "full", "free" and "informed".
The state of Victoria currently is facing great legal challenges. The latest mandates - primarily directed towards workers and operators of certain facilities - have in various cases led to persons undergoing medical treatment in the form of vaccination against Covid-19. Often it is a case of "no jab-no pay" that is, if you do not undergo the vaccination you will lose your job.
Two camps have emerged. One group points out that the directions really give a person a choice to either have the vaccination or cease employment. No-one is exactly holding that person down forcibly and injecting them. No-one is drugging them or hypnotising them. They simply elect to have the vaccination to continue work and "get on with life".
The opposing group however points out that people are really only taking the vaccine for the purpose of maintaining their job, not because they wish to be vaccinated. The driver is not the same. Under other circumstances they would either have not been vaccinated, or merely delayed that little bit longer until they opted for vaccination.
Section 10(c) provides a critical benchmark for each camp. The criterion which catches my eye is that the consent needs to also be "free". The other criteria are of course important, but the concept of "free" consent also connotes other aspects, most notably that someone is not coerced into undertaking medical treatment. Any form of coercion or duress can only erode the concept of a choice "freely made".
All too often people in such a situation conclude "I had to", or "I had no choice, I would lose my job", or "there was a choice, but not a real one", or " I just started in my career, I need to work". Of course not everyone concludes this way, but just the existence of mandates assumes that some form of "push" was required to generate that consent in a population which may not have easily consented to begin with....in which case, is a push even required for consent to be given?
Anyhow, these are my random thoughts - honestly I hope we look at this all in 5 years time and laugh knowing that Covid-19 was beaten and by that time, a thing of the past.
