Quebec mandates chaperones for unvaxxed in big box stores

[KCfromNC]

I said it was ominous for the government to coerce a health procedure without informed consent.

Perhaps. Is that something which is actually happening?

It is a permanent change to your body that they are pressuring you to get.

Vaccine initiatives are nothing new, and not particularly ominous. Just common sense public health measures.

No, it is not fear about vaccines. It is fear about the erosion of the ethical principle of informed consent, and the government thinking it can control people's lives that is ominous

That's certainly the claim. Weird there's not a widespread history of opposing other vaccination programs from the people who are now suddenly not-concerned-about-vaccines-but-something-else-no-really.

If you wish to discuss the vaccines, take it to a different thread.

I was responding to you "discuss"ing vaccines :

And I did note a fact-based reason some might object. If someone has prior infection, which I posted studies showing is as protective or more than vaccination, then they should not be required to take on additional risks for very little benefit.​

 

[tall73]

tall73 said: ↑

I said it was ominous for the government to coerce a health procedure without informed consent.

Is that something which is actually happening?

Yes. Read the thread.

Vaccine initiatives are nothing new, and not particularly ominous. Just common sense public health measures.

Chaperones for unvaxxed people in stores of 1,500 people is a bit new, and is the topic of the thread.

That's certainly the claim. Weird there's not a widespread history of opposing other vaccination programs from the people who are now suddenly not-concerned-about-vaccines-but-something-else-no-really.

I have a history of discussing informed consent in these forums.

I was responding to you "discuss"ing vaccines :

And I did note a fact-based reason some might object. If someone has prior infection, which I posted studies showing is as protective or more than vaccination, then they should not be required to take on additional risks for very little benefit.​

Your initial reply was to this

tall73 said: ↑

That is because it is ominous in my book. Permanent changes to your body are not small decisions.

Which was a follow-up to

tall73 said: ↑
Don't forget that your government coerced people into a permanent health decision that CANNOT be rolled back.

The reply you just highlighted was after you diverted it to discuss vaccines and misrepresented my view on them.

 

[expos4ever]

Don't forget that your government coerced people into a permanent health decision that CANNOT be rolled back.

Is it any less coercive for the state to require children to get vaccinated to attend school?

 

[Hazelelponi]

Is it any less coercive for the state to require children to get vaccinated to attend school?

Children have only ever been mandated to get vaccinated for school attendance against childhood diseases with vaccines that prevent disease in order to prevent spread of said diseases.

CDC:

"These vaccination requirements are important tools for maintaining high vaccination coverage and low rates of vaccine-preventable diseases (VPD)" School Vaccination Requirements and Exemptions | CDC

Also, the laws vary state to state, and is not mandated federally. Also, exemptions are allowed according to medical needs, religious observation, and sometimes philosophical reasons.

COVID, we have learned, isn't a childhood disease although they may contract mild versions of it (or in very rare cases a more serious case) and it's not vaccine-preventable.

Therefore, given the risk to youth the vaccine itself presents, more risk than the disease for the majority of children, this decision should be parental choice - not mandated.

 

[tall73]

Is it any less coercive for the state to require children to get vaccinated to attend school?

I oppose those measures as well, as it is still pressure to take a medical procedure. Note, I gave my kids vaccines because I thought the data supported it. I take vaccines also because I think the data supports it. But I don't think coercion should be used for medical procedures. If the vaccines are good the data should convince most people.

Vaccine hesitancy pre-covid seemed to run in acquaintance groups, and often involved skepticism of authority. Attempts to enforce vaccines by authority undercut efforts to encourage vaccination by better education. That is not to say you may not be able to get a good number of people to be vaccinated by coercion. People tend to act in their interest, even if they resent it. But it also means that for the percentage that are die hard opponents it reinforces their suspicion of authority and makes progress more difficult. And if you keep mandating even some who take it, but resent it, may stop cooperating. Hence, while there are other vaccines that involve boosters, when there is talk of mandating boosters on an ongoing basis, or placing various limits on people if they don't get them, people can build up resentment to such a proposal.

Either way, we should preserve the right to make determinations about medical procedures without trying to pressure people. The risks and benefits should be spelled out, and the person should make a voluntary decision.

But in the case of the measure in the OP, it doesn't even make sense. They incentivized people at higher risk of hospitalization to pack into smaller establishments, where their risk could be higher. And they cost businesses money, and endangered front line workers rather than enforce it through government workers.

 

[tall73]

Well I do know that thousands are protesting in Canada (here is a video from a CBC, including the requisite fear language and photos of hospitalized people). So at least a good portion do not want this control. The videos of people on site are also available. In fact, these protests are happening world wide.

So not buying that Canadians are complacent about this. They sound pretty passionate to me.

Apparently the leadership in Quebec are coming around to your point of view!

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/vax-tax-nixed-1.6334828

The tax, which was announced in January by the premier, would have imposed a monetary penalty on Quebecers who are eligible but who refuse to get their first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine.

Legault says while his government has a bill ready to go, he's decided not to table it after seeing "growing discontent" in the population.

 

[Belk]

tall73 said: ↑

I said it was ominous for the government to coerce a health procedure without informed consent.



Yes. Read the thread.



Chaperones for unvaxxed people in stores of 1,500 people is a bit new, and is the topic of the thread.



I have a history of discussing informed consent in these forums.




Your initial reply was to this

tall73 said: ↑

That is because it is ominous in my book. Permanent changes to your body are not small decisions.

Which was a follow-up to

tall73 said: ↑
Don't forget that your government coerced people into a permanent health decision that CANNOT be rolled back.

The reply you just highlighted was after you diverted it to discuss vaccines and misrepresented my view on them.

Can you speak to your view of "Informed consent"? My understanding of the phrase does not deal with a situation like wee see here. Simply having a regulatory compliance in order to cross the border would not abrogate consent. It would take someone holding you down and forcing the vaccine on you against your will.

 

[tall73]

Can you speak to your view of "Informed consent"? My understanding of the phrase does not deal with a situation like wee see here. Simply having a regulatory compliance in order to cross the border would not abrogate consent. It would take someone holding you down and forcing the vaccine on you against your will.

Informed consent - PubMed

Physicians have an ethical and legal duty to obtain patients' informed consent before ordering testing and treatment. Informed consent encompasses informed refusal, the correlative right of patients to refuse tests and therapies they do not want. A patient's informed consent requires adequate information, capacity to decide, and absence of coercion. Informed consent is incorporated into a process of agreement between a patient and a physician called "shared decision making."


https://www.emedicinehealth.com/informed_consent/article_em.htm

There are 4 principles of informed consent:

• You must have the capacity (or ability) to make the decision.
  
• The medical provider must disclose information on the treatment, test, or procedure in question, including the expected benefits and risks, and the likelihood (or probability) that the benefits and risks will occur.
  
• You must comprehend the relevant information.
  
• You must voluntarily grant consent, without coercion or duress.

 

[tall73]

CMPA - Consent: A guide for Canadian physicians

Voluntary consent
Patients must always be free to consent to or refuse treatment, and be free of any suggestion of duress or coercion. Consent obtained under any suggestion of compulsion either by the actions or words of the physician or others may be no consent at all and therefore may be successfully repudiated.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

CMPA - Consent: A guide for Canadian physicians

Voluntary consent
Patients must always be free to consent to or refuse treatment, and be free of any suggestion of duress or coercion. Consent obtained under any suggestion of compulsion either by the actions or words of the physician or others may be no consent at all and therefore may be successfully repudiated.

And nobody is coercing you. you can decide that you don't want to be vaccinated. If you do though, you have to put up with a chaperone or shop somewhere else. If you don't like it elect someone else.

 

[tall73]

And nobody is coercing you. you can decide that you don't want to be vaccinated. If you do though, you have to put up with a chaperone or shop somewhere else. If you don't like it elect someone else.

Escalating consequences for non-compliance is coercion. Saying someone cannot go to certain stores, indicating fines for non-compliance, etc. are means of trying to get people to do something they are not already inclined to do. Medical procedures are to be free from coercion, influence, duress, etc. The person should choose the procedure on an understanding of the merits.

As to electing someone else, apparently the people of Quebec managed to influence those currently in office on at least one proposed measure by their "discontent".

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/vax-tax-nixed-1.6334828

The tax, which was announced in January by the premier, would have imposed a monetary penalty on Quebecers who are eligible but who refuse to get their first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine.

Legault says while his government has a bill ready to go, he's decided not to table it after seeing "growing discontent" in the population.

Community advocates, bioethicists and other experts raised concerns about the proposal, saying that more education was needed, instead of punitive measures. Others questioned the legal ramifications, saying the proposed tax could run afoul of the Canada Health Act.

 

[Belk]

Informed consent - PubMed

Physicians have an ethical and legal duty to obtain patients' informed consent before ordering testing and treatment. Informed consent encompasses informed refusal, the correlative right of patients to refuse tests and therapies they do not want. A patient's informed consent requires adequate information, capacity to decide, and absence of coercion. Informed consent is incorporated into a process of agreement between a patient and a physician called "shared decision making."


https://www.emedicinehealth.com/informed_consent/article_em.htm

There are 4 principles of informed consent:

• You must have the capacity (or ability) to make the decision.
  
• The medical provider must disclose information on the treatment, test, or procedure in question, including the expected benefits and risks, and the likelihood (or probability) that the benefits and risks will occur.
  
• You must comprehend the relevant information.
  
• You must voluntarily grant consent, without coercion or duress.

Does any sort of repercussion constitute coercion?

 

[tall73]

Does any sort of repercussion constitute coercion?

Imposing a fine is not a natural repercussion of one's health decision. It is a punitive measure to try to persuade people to undertake a health decision.

 

[Belk]

Imposing a fine is not a natural repercussion of one's health decision. It is a punitive measure to try to persuade people to undertake a health decision.

I agree, but that does not answer my question. Does any sort of repercussion constitute coercion?

 

[tall73]

I agree, but that does not answer my question. Does any sort of repercussion constitute coercion?

From a medical treatment standpoint people trying to pressure is coercion.

There may be other repercussions that are outside the control of the system, such as family not inviting you to Thanksgiving dinner, etc. But we are discussing government actions here, and those are certainly intentional decisions to try to get people to take an action that they otherwise might not wish to.

 

[Belk]

From a medical treatment standpoint people trying to pressure is coercion.

There may be other repercussions that are outside the control of the system, such as family not inviting you to Thanksgiving dinner, etc. But we are discussing government actions here, and those are certainly intentional decisions to try to get people to take an action that they otherwise might not wish to.

So if a person is denied entry to a country because they do not have a vaccination against polio that would constitute coercion in your estimation?

 

[tall73]

So if a person is denied entry to a country because they do not have a vaccination against polio that would constitute coercion in your estimation?

The measures being discussed here are for those already living in Quebec. You don't necessarily have a right to enter a country.

But a government should likewise not be able to fine and penalize their citizens for existing in their natural state. You should be able to consent to medical treatment.

 

[tall73]

tall73 said: ↑

Imposing a fine is not a natural repercussion of one's health decision. It is a punitive measure to try to persuade people to undertake a health decision.

Belk said: ↑

I agree, but that does not answer my question. Does any sort of repercussion constitute coercion?

We both agree it is a punitive measure. My position is that I oppose such punitive measures.

 

[Belk]

tall73 said: ↑

Imposing a fine is not a natural repercussion of one's health decision. It is a punitive measure to try to persuade people to undertake a health decision.

Belk said: ↑

I agree, but that does not answer my question. Does any sort of repercussion constitute coercion?

We both agree it is a punitive measure. My position is that I oppose such punitive measures.

My position is some measures should be allowed for the good of society. That is why we don't object to laws requiring food handlers to wash their hands. The good of the action outweighs the imposition of the requirement.

 

[Belk]

The measures being discussed here are for those already living in Quebec. You don't necessarily have a right to enter a country.

But a government should likewise not be able to fine and penalize their citizens for existing in their natural state. You should be able to consent to medical treatment.

I disagree. I believe that we as a society should have laws that contribute to societal good. I think you believe the same thing. Our disagreement is on where the line is drawn.