Welcome to GUBU.ie - if you're new here check out Housekeeping for more info. Any queries contact us.

Covid legal cases.

All things COVID
schmittel
Verified Username
Posts: 1166
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2021 5:15 pm

Re: Covid legal cases.

#26

Post by schmittel »

Peregrinus wrote: Thu Feb 17, 2022 1:24 am But, Schittel, you still haven't explained exactly what your claim against the government is. If I tell you something that turns out to be untrue, that does not in itself give you a cause of action against me. This is true even if I am the government. You need some addtional facts in order to have any kind of a claim against me. You mention consumer protection rights as an analogy, but the analogy doesn't work. If I tell you X in order to get you to give me money, and you give me money in reliance on what I have said, then you can complain if what I said turns out to be untrue. But you haven't given the government any money in reliance on their statements about the efficacy of the vaccine.

If the government urges you to stop smoking, suggesting that it will lessen the chances of you getting lung cancer, and you stop, but you get lung cancer anyway, can you sue the government?
According to the HSE's National Consent Policy "Seeking consent is not merely getting a consent form signed", it must be valid and genuine, and "treating service users without their consent is a violation of their legal and constitutional rights and may result in civil or criminal proceedings being taken by the service user."

My claim is that I was given a medical intervention with obtaining valid informed consent.

The consent I gave was invalid because the information on the purpose and the benefits of the intervention - to protect against symptomatic infection and reduce transmission - I was provided with was incorrect. It does not matter whether or not they knew it was incorrect when they provided the information, the very fact it was incorrect renders the consent invalid.

The smoking analogy is ridiculous because the government does not have a legal requirement to obtain my consent to encourage me to stop smoking. It is not a medical intervention to urge me to stop doing something I am already doing. It is obviously quite the opposite.

Peregrinus wrote: Thu Feb 17, 2022 1:24 amOn a separate point, you say:

"In order to defend this the HSE will either have to prove that the information was not flawed, which seems like a big ask.

Or failing that they have to argue that it is legitimate to obtain informed consent using flawed information. That also seems like a big ask."


I think this is wrong on both counts. If you're suing the HSE on the basis that they gave you flawed information, the onus is not on the HSE to prove that it was not flawed; the burden of proof is on you to show that the information was flawed.
The vaccine roll out was based on the successful trial results at preventing symptomatic infection. There is no shortage of studies and data showing that the vaccine effectiveness in the real world was significantly less than the trial results showed. In addition to that it is clear that the HSE changed their messaging on the benefits of vaccination to ultimately focus on entirely on reducing hospitalisation and death.

In April Tony Holohan wrote an open letter to the vaccinated encouraging them to get out and start living life again because they could have "confidence" in their vaccine. Less than four months later he was publicly expressing disappointment with the vaccine's performance in reducing case numbers.

You can be sure that there are internal documents expressing this disappointment and change of messaging in slightly more robust terms.

Whilst the onus may not be on the HSE to prove the initial information they provided was correct, they will at least have to defend the claims it was incorrect. How do they do that if they are unable to prove it was correct?
Peregrinus wrote: Thu Feb 17, 2022 1:24 amAnd, as to whether it's legitimate to obtain informed consent using flawed information — it depends on what we mean by "flawed". If by "flawed" we mean "it could be wrong", well, all scientific understandings could be wrong. That's fundamental to the concept of "scientific". If we mean that it was wrong (something you have to show, remember) then, if you have shown that, you have a number of other hurdles to cross. You have to show that it was wrong in a material way, for one thing. As to whether it is "legitimate" to rely on it, again that is going to come back to whether the HSE could or should reasonably have known that it was wrong. And, again, the burden of proof will be on you.
I'd argue that the intended purpose and benefits of vaccination is an expectation of immunity. Is that materially different to an expectation of not ending up in ICU or the morgue? I'd argue yes, and the court can decide who is right based on the strength of the HSE's argument that not ending up in ICU or the morgue is not materially different to immunity.

As to the legitimacy I'd argue that whilst I accept the HSE cannot possibly know all the risks involved with a medical intervention, it it is reasonable to expect that they know what the rewards of an intervention are. I can make a strong argument for the the idea that if the HSE are advising medical procedures to citizens then they could and should reasonably know that the reasons for that advice are correct.

Again it would come down to the court to decide based on the strength of the HSE's argument that they could not or should reasonably be expected to know it was wrong.

In terms of valid informed consent, it is not enough to say "Well we we wrong about the expected benefits, but sure the intervention did provide some. benefits and it didn't do you any harm anyway. We think. But we're not sure. And in any case it doesn't matter whether we are sure or not, we cannot reasonably be expected to know."

As you said earlier, the key question is how will it play out? Are the HSE really going to argue to try and argue these points to the hilt? If they argue the points and win they run risk of undermine public confidence in their future advice. If they argue and lose they obliterate public confidence.

They might decide that discretion is the better part of valour.
316670
Posts: 328
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2021 7:26 pm

Re: Covid legal cases.

#27

Post by 316670 »

Looks like serious trouble ahead.
Over 1 year ago this started, so knowing this the political class still pushed the vaccine, when will we see the first people hang?
Peregrinus
Posts: 152
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2021 4:14 am

Re: Covid legal cases.

#28

Post by Peregrinus »

Hi Schittel

Assuming you succeed in showing that the information was incorrect, I think you fall at this hurdle:

"It does not matter whether or not they knew it was incorrect when they provided the information, the very fact it was incorrect renders the consent invalid."

Do you have a a precedent in which consent obtained by information believed tat the time to be correct but later understood to be incorrect was held not to be informed consent? You're stating this as if it was an established rule of law, but I'd be very surprised if it were.
schmittel
Verified Username
Posts: 1166
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2021 5:15 pm

Re: Covid legal cases.

#29

Post by schmittel »

Peregrinus wrote: Mon Feb 21, 2022 2:06 am Hi Schittel

Assuming you succeed in showing that the information was incorrect, I think you fall at this hurdle:

"It does not matter whether or not they knew it was incorrect when they provided the information, the very fact it was incorrect renders the consent invalid."

Do you have a a precedent in which consent obtained by information believed tat the time to be correct but later understood to be incorrect was held not to be informed consent? You're stating this as if it was an established rule of law, but I'd be very surprised if it were.
Informed consent is fundamentally about ensuring patients are informed about the risks and the rewards.

All the precedents I have seen cover unknown risks - i.e it was held that in informing patients of the risks it was not reasonable to expect anybody to be able to foresee every single possible risk involved in the intervention.

But turn that on it's head and argue the case re the rewards. If you are seeking informed consent based on the rewards of the intervention is it reasonable to expect that information to be correct?

I would argue that it is reasonable to expect it to be correct - in any case.

But even more particularly so if you are seeking informed consent from otherwise healthy patients - i.e the intervention is explained to be preventative and to benefit others as well as the individual patient.

And even more particularly so if you are going to restrict peoples movements based on the understanding that information is correct.

I think you can make a very reasonable argument backed up with data on the above.

In order for the HSE to win the case they would have to argue that the above is wrong - any sort of robust counter argument is likely to cause a lot more problems than it solves.

That's why I said it could turn into a giant game of whack a mole.
Peregrinus
Posts: 152
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2021 4:14 am

Re: Covid legal cases.

#30

Post by Peregrinus »

I'd be reasonably confident that the concept of informed consent to medical treatment refers to the medicial consequences, good and bad, of the treatment. I seriously doubt that the person or agency administering the treatment is obliged to inform you about the social, legal, etc judgments that will be made if you do or do not accept the treatment; still less about the social, legal, etc judgments that may be made based on how many people accept the treatment, regardless of whether you accept it or not. And they certainly don't have to predict these consequences with a higher degree of reliability than they are expected to predict direct medical outcomes.

Run these arguments if you want. But your lawyers will definitely insist on being paid up front.
schmittel
Verified Username
Posts: 1166
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2021 5:15 pm

Re: Covid legal cases.

#31

Post by schmittel »

Peregrinus wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 2:57 am I'd be reasonably confident that the concept of informed consent to medical treatment refers to the medicial consequences, good and bad, of the treatment. I seriously doubt that the person or agency administering the treatment is obliged to inform you about the social, legal, etc judgments that will be made if you do or do not accept the treatment; still less about the social, legal, etc judgments that may be made based on how many people accept the treatment, regardless of whether you accept it or not. And they certainly don't have to predict these consequences with a higher degree of reliability than they are expected to predict direct medical outcomes.

Run these arguments if you want. But your lawyers will definitely insist on being paid up front.
I'm not talking about arguing there was a lack of information about the social or legal consequences of the treatment.

I am arguing that regarding the medical outcomes, the consent was misinformed. i.e the vaccination did not provide the benefits it was claimed.
Peregrinus
Posts: 152
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2021 4:14 am

Re: Covid legal cases.

#32

Post by Peregrinus »

schmittel wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 7:18 am I'm not talking about arguing there was a lack of information about the social or legal consequences of the treatment.

I am arguing that regarding the medical outcomes, the consent was misinformed. i.e the vaccination did not provide the benefits it was claimed.
It substantially provided the medical benefits that were claimed.
User avatar
Bishop_Brennan
Posts: 389
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2022 9:42 am

Re: Covid legal cases.

#33

Post by Bishop_Brennan »

Frank wrote: Tue Feb 15, 2022 5:21 pm Hopeflly, and most likely, she will get the €0 she deserves.
So it's ok that a lying sociopathic government blackmailed her into getting a vaccine she didn't need and now has health issues from this shit ?
Jack The Stripper
Posts: 453
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2022 8:20 pm

Re: Covid legal cases.

#34

Post by Jack The Stripper »

Peregrinus wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 12:36 am It substantially provided the medical benefits that were claimed.
Don’t forget the all important covid passport which is now dropped.
Post Reply