by Long Island Attorney Paul A. Lauto, Esq.
The well established informed consent requirement for clinical investigations, surgeries, medical procedures and for food and drugs for human use, is both ethically and legally required by societal mores, ethical canons, federal and state laws. Notwithstanding, recent federal mandates have been put in place requiring covid vaccinations arguably in the absence of informed consent and countermanding our constitutional rights. When our judicial branch of government is confronted with challenges to these mandates, will it uphold the constitutional rights of individuals and their foundational right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness or will it fold like the political house of cards it has increasingly become?
The imminent issue to be presented before the courts is whether or not executive branch federal mandates to administer the covid vaccine are legal. Such power or authority is not granted to the executive branch anywhere in the constitution and all federal powers that are not explicitly stated in the constitution are expressly reserved for the states. In addition, such mandates raise questions as to whether or not they violate the equal protection and free exercise of religion clauses of the constitution. Further, is the question of how mandating the covid vaccine could be legal when informed consent cannot possibly be obtained for a drug that has failed to pass the customary prerequisite necessary years of safety and efficacy testing and the extensive study of both short term and long term side effects.
Proponents argue that none of this matters because the mandates are necessary to protect the public, the importance of which is second to none. However, the very premise of this argument is defective as it is based primarily on covid infection and death rates, which are based on an admittedly flawed testing system with an extremely high percentage of false positives.
Strictly from a legal perspective, it is stunning how individual and constitutional rights in our country have been discarded quicker than an antiquated print version of a newspaper. Any court with a modicum of objectivity should strike down these mandates for the constitutional abomination that they are, but that doesn't mean it will happen. Today's judicial branch has become largely contaminated with political bias in the decision making process and therefore may well fail to uphold our country's foundational principles and right of individual choice. All this is not to say that people should or should not get vaccinated, but rather that it should be the choice of every individual of age to make for themselves upon careful consideration. To hold otherwise would be the formal beginning of the end of our free society.
Long Island Lawyer
Paul A. Lauto, Esq.
www.liattorney.com
The well established informed consent requirement for clinical investigations, surgeries, medical procedures and for food and drugs for human use, is both ethically and legally required by societal mores, ethical canons, federal and state laws. Notwithstanding, recent federal mandates have been put in place requiring covid vaccinations arguably in the absence of informed consent and countermanding our constitutional rights. When our judicial branch of government is confronted with challenges to these mandates, will it uphold the constitutional rights of individuals and their foundational right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness or will it fold like the political house of cards it has increasingly become?
The imminent issue to be presented before the courts is whether or not executive branch federal mandates to administer the covid vaccine are legal. Such power or authority is not granted to the executive branch anywhere in the constitution and all federal powers that are not explicitly stated in the constitution are expressly reserved for the states. In addition, such mandates raise questions as to whether or not they violate the equal protection and free exercise of religion clauses of the constitution. Further, is the question of how mandating the covid vaccine could be legal when informed consent cannot possibly be obtained for a drug that has failed to pass the customary prerequisite necessary years of safety and efficacy testing and the extensive study of both short term and long term side effects.
Proponents argue that none of this matters because the mandates are necessary to protect the public, the importance of which is second to none. However, the very premise of this argument is defective as it is based primarily on covid infection and death rates, which are based on an admittedly flawed testing system with an extremely high percentage of false positives.
Strictly from a legal perspective, it is stunning how individual and constitutional rights in our country have been discarded quicker than an antiquated print version of a newspaper. Any court with a modicum of objectivity should strike down these mandates for the constitutional abomination that they are, but that doesn't mean it will happen. Today's judicial branch has become largely contaminated with political bias in the decision making process and therefore may well fail to uphold our country's foundational principles and right of individual choice. All this is not to say that people should or should not get vaccinated, but rather that it should be the choice of every individual of age to make for themselves upon careful consideration. To hold otherwise would be the formal beginning of the end of our free society.
Long Island Lawyer
Paul A. Lauto, Esq.
www.liattorney.com
RSS Feed
