FAKE, Illegal Informed Consent Patient Hand Out – Auckland District Health Board
A doctor is under a duty of care to take reasonable steps to ensure that all patients are aware of any material risks involved in any recommended treatment. Doctors are also under a duty of care to advise of reasonable alternatives or variant treatments. The test of materiality is whether, in the circumstances of the particular case, a reasonable person, in the patient’s position, would be likely to attach significance to the risk, or whether the doctor is, or should be reasonably aware that the particular patient would be likely to attach significance to the risk.
Excepting to this ethical principle – a New Zealand laparoscopic cholecystectomy surgeon operating under protection.
The documentation below is used by New Zealand laparoscopic cholecystectomy surgeons, at District Health Boards, to obtain illegally required informed consent for treating patients’ gallstones and gallbladder issues.
The true intention of the current informed consent documentation for laparoscopic cholecystectomy surgery is to obtain consent by deception and misrepresentation with a deliberately crafted concealment of all side effect risks and alternative non-surgical treatment options. There is a preference to withhold treatment options so that patients’ feel that surgery is their only choice, which equals financial gain for surgeons. This is fraud by false representation and is also a criminal offence under the Crimes Act 1961 No 43 (as at 28 September 2017), Public Act 240
This documentation can be used in a court of law as evidence: New Zealand laparoscopic cholecystectomy surgeons (under the direct protection of the HDC) are committing the following unlawful criminal offences on patients under the Crimes Act 1961:
- Negligence causing injury,
- Assault and battery for touching a person without the patient providing full consent;
- Obtaining consent dishonestly through coercion and misuse of position of trust.
This behavior is deception, misrepresentation and coercion. It is a deliberate concealment of risks, side effects and alternative non-surgical treatment options. As such, it is a breach of the legally enforceable Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers’ Rights (the Code).
As employers, District Health Board are liable under Section 72(2) of the Health and Disability Commissioner Act 1994 for failing to prevent the acts, or omissions, of employees. They are vicariously liable for criminal negligence causing harm and injury. Including conspiring to block services that would lead to the diagnosis and treatment for known post surgery side effect complications. As such, they are exposed as having complicit involvement in this fraud.
“Trivialising the nature of the harm and downplaying the risks in order to obtain consent by a laparoscopic surgeon is a serious issue. Morally and ethically, it can be likened to the behaviour of narcissistic sociopaths. Those involved are displaying the integrity of serious criminals who are intentionally causing harm, with terrifying outcomes. Violating patients’ rights without hesitation is not just greedy, but also evil. (LWNGB)”
And