permission granted in full knowledge of the possible consequences, typically that which is given by a patient to a doctor for treatment with knowledge of the possible risks and benefits.

We live to learn

I guess that has always been my way.

Well, not always, I must admit. When you are young and dumb, as I was, you don't really have the maturity to make your own calls. At best, I guess, I had many gut felt moments of pensiveness. That little voice telling you that you are heading in the wrong direction.

Also, admittedly, I have made many mistakes all through my life for not listening to that little voice of wisdom. Now, I consult it alot more. It seems to be doing me very well.

This is my teachings to my children. To try and pick up on that little voice.

I have two rules for my children. I will be hard on two fronts;

If something will harm them. There will be no compromise in my demeanor towards anything that will cause them an unreasonable amount of danger.
To reinforce good social character. I accept them for their strengths and weaknesses. However, common decency towards others is important. Regardless, if others do not reciprocate. I teach my children to share with others, but by others, I also mean, to themselves as well. Don't expect others to share with you!

Also, my children, at most times (except for my laws), can exercise Informed Consent, to determine some of their actions. This needs to be expressed via some conversation, like an informal, "parent court". Where we have some, at times, not so organised, or polite, discussions, accusations, musings, joking, banter, about a decision they make.

I do my best to be fair and reasonable. ALthough, getting older increases my grumpiness.

The Right to Say, No.

I guess my hope is that they learn early on that they can say, "No.".

Especially, in a work environment, where many times, "motivation", is just another word for, "manipulation", when the outcome is more of a negative, for you, than a positive.

Being a good person, especially, an accommodating or reasonable person, you best learn how to stand up for yourself as young as possible.

Listen to that voice within your gut, back yourself a little bit, and make sure you are enjoying your action with a positive intention.

Medical Informed Consent

The current Drug Treatment Mandates have also peaked my interest regarding Informed Consent.

Governments have provided indemnity to Manufacturers, Hidden their Contracts, Kept ingredients secret, provided health professionals with indemnity as well, caused financial ruin for non-compliance ...

and yet will not breach INFORMED CONSENT

There is alot to unpack here regarding "sufficient information"

As a lawyer noted;

The risks of clotting now are very well known, and as long as a GP highlighted them there is just no way there could ever be a cause of action against a GP. Any action would be against the vaccine manufacturer under Australian consumer law, and even that is extremely fraught. They’ve already provided indemnity to the manufacturers.

Undue pressure, coecion or manipulation?

Losing your job is not any of those? Strange days indeed.

It seems to be a rigged game. And if you don't know any of the following, then you could have a case in the future, if something bad happens.

A Stage IV trial drug with unknown efficacy and unknown side effects.

I am not talking about the known, reported, bespattered list of side effects. You know, not the original, "information booklet", or the, "Updated booklet", adding the exciting new, previously unknown, we said were not our fault, side effects.

Buyer beware, hey. It is all a contract, until it is conscription... (Shhh Section 51xxiiia of the Australian Constitution.)

Courts tackling with Informed Consent

Way back in the ancient days, a concept of Informed Consent has always revolved around Medicine.
Indian doctors had a duty of care, Hippocrates & Plato, tackled with the idea of Doctor/Patient relationships.

The term informed consent first appeared in 1957 with an old guy who became paralysed.

There may be difficulties proving malpractice against a Doctor, so Informed Consent is a much easier argument to win - that you were not advised as to the risks of a procedure.

Thus, where a plaintiff can bring a case in battery it will almost
inevitably transfer a large part of the onus of the case onto the
defendant, at the same time dispensing with the need to go into evidence
of accepted standards of medical practice with the associated practical
difficulties of obtaining witnesses. ref

Having Tort law backing up Informed Consent provides a level of protection for patients.

The slippery slope in how much information the patient should know, needs to know or should ask in relation to their medical intervention.

It established that, rather than being a matter for clinical judgment to be assessed by professional medical opinion, a patient should be told whatever they want to know, not what the doctor thinks they should be told. (Montgomery v Lanarkshire case of March 2015)