Dúvida: o utente dos serviços de saúde está a ter direito à decisão e a um consentimento livre e esclarecido na administração das vacinas?
Os utentes devem ter acesso a "informação verdadeira, completa, inteligível e transparente sobre todos os aspectos" na prestação de cuidados de saúde. Essa informação deve ser transmitida "com verdade e com antecedência", "de forma clara e adaptada à sua capacidade de compreensão"; e com "todos os factos necessários à tomada de decisão", incluindo os "tratamentos a efectuar, riscos associados e efeitos secundários (frequentes, raros e graves)", se há "eventuais tratamentos alternativos" e ainda que tem o "direito de recusar ou revogar o consentimento".
É isto que está a acontecer com o plano de vacinação? Ou está a ser presumido o "direito de não-saber" para proteger terceiros?
E estão a ocorrer casos com os adultos responsáveis por menores que se recusam a vaciná-los, quando perante essa "recusa de tratamento, por parte do representante legal de utente menor ou incapaz, se o médico ou outro profissional de saúde entender que há prejuízo grave para a sua saúde, o mesmo goza do direito a que tal profissional recorra às instâncias judiciais para obter a necessária autorização para o acto, exame ou tratamento necessários"?
No Reino Unido
The COVID-19 vaccine, informed consent and the recruitment of volunteers: As the media rush to hail the new vaccine – bolstered by the subsequent news Moderna have a 95% effective vaccine in trials – it is important to ensure that information communicated to the public be truthful, transparent and accurate. This is best communicated by experienced professionals. Questions remain as to whether the vaccine is effective across all populations. Of particular concern is the elderly population known to elicit weaker immunological responses to vaccines. It is also yet to be seen whether the vaccine will completely block transmission or instead simply reduce symptoms in vaccinated individuals – vital in terms of easing social distancing measures. There is also a lack of longevity in terms of the data. Before the pandemic, it would take 10-15 years to develop a vaccine from inception to licencing, yet the COVID-19 vaccines data was collected over two months. Nevertheless, the UK Government forges ahead with plans to roll out the vaccine. The military are being enlisted to distribute vaccine vials on dry ice – in their “biggest task since the war” – and St John’s Ambulance Volunteers are recruiting volunteers to administer the jab. Yet we must pause to consider how to ensure adequate levels of vaccine acceptance. Arguably, this is best achieved through shared decision-making and informed consent, which can be a vehicle to addressing vaccine hesitancy.
Informed consent is the cornerstone of medical ethics, yet I doubt whether the bulk of the British population is being properly informed before consenting to have the covid ‘vaccine’, be it the Pfizer version or the now questionable Oxford-AstraZeneca one: Without being fully informed, people are in effect, giving consent on a foundation of blind faith. Faith that it works, faith that it’s safe, faith that those in charge are being honest about it, faith in the manufacturer’s sense of ethics and responsibility, faith that it’s even a vaccine. That’s a big leap of faith right there.
