“Restricting people’s access to work, education, public transport, and social life based on COVID-19 vaccination status impinges on human rights, promotes stigma and social polarization, and adversely affects health and wellbeing.” https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4022798

Is there any scientific justification to segregating people and denying them access to your services?

The World Council For Health report “The justification given for such measures is apparently to protect the wider population from the spread of Covid-19 and to ensure that those who have chosen to not take the vaccine do not burden health services.

There are two assumptions behind these rationales: 

  1. People who have not been vaccinated spread SARS-CoV-2 far more than those who have taken Covid-19 vaccines
  2. People who have not been vaccinated are more likely to need medical attention and be hospitalized if they become infected with SARS-CoV-2

Both of these assumptions are just that—assumptions. In terms of evidence, they are on increasingly shaky ground. In fact, emerging data are suggesting that the opposite is true for spreading the virus, and it’s even beginning to appear in the mainstream narrative.”

They conclude “There is no scientific justification to segregate people who choose not to take the experimental Covid-19 ‘vaccine’. They are no more dangerous to public health than anyone else. Any policy of exclusion, therefore, has nothing to do with keeping citizens safe, and everything to do with social control. This is why we call on everyone—jabbed or not—to refuse to comply with segregation. Saying no to such divisive and discriminatory measures is saying yes to evidence-based health policy, social cohesion, and togetherness.”

The EU charter of fundamental rights

“4-Right to Consent

Every individual has the right of access to all information that might enable him or her to actively participate in the decisions regarding his or her health;  this information is a prerequisite for any procedure and treatment, including the participation in scientific research.

Health care providers and professionals must give the patient all information relative to a treatment or an operation to be undergone, including the associated risks and discomforts, side-effects and alternatives. 

This information must be given with enough advance time (at least 24 hours notice) to enable the patient to actively participate in the therapeutic choices regarding his or her state of health.

Health care providers and professionals must use a language known to the patient and communicate in a way that is comprehensible to persons without a technical background.

In all circumstances which provide for a legal representative to give the informed consent, the patient, whether a minor or an adult unable to understand or to will, must still be as involved as possible in the decisions regarding him or her.

The informed consent of a patient must be procured on this basis.

A patient has the right to refuse a treatment or a medical intervention and to change his or her mind during the treatment, refusing its continuation.

A patient has the right to refuse information about his or her health status.

5-Right to Free Choice

Each individual has the right to freely choose from among different treatment procedures and providers on the basis of adequate information.

The patient has the right to decide which diagnostic exams and therapies to undergo, and which primary care doctor, specialist or hospital to use. 

The health services have the duty to guarantee this right, providing patients with information on the various centres and doctors able to provide a certain treatment, and on the results of their activity. 

They must remove any kind of obstacle limiting exercise of this right.

A patient who does not have trust in his or her doctor has the right to designate another one.”

UK specific

To every living man, woman or child in the U.K.:

YOU have the INALIENABLE, FUNDAMENTAL, RIGHT to REFUSE any medical intervention and or treatment even if the refusal leads to your death. 

You do NOT have to: 

  • Explain yourself 
  • Justify yourself 
  • Prove a religious or any other objection

You have Sovereignty over your own body and mind:

“Voluntas aegroti suprema lex” – Over his or her own mind and body, the Individual is Sovereign”  (John Stuart Mill, “On Liberty”). ie “Bodily Integrity”. And that includes Sovereignty to refuse or accept medical treatment/intervention/procedures. 

How do you assert this Right? 

You simply say “NO – I do NOT want this medical treatment/intervention/procedure.” That’s it!

NO-ONE has the right to derogate from your inalienable, fundamental Right to Bodily Integrity – including your MPs in government, your employer, your doctor/medical team, your council, your school or college or your University or any corporation or other entity. 

HM the Queen – as Head of State- does not have the right to derogate from your inalienable, fundamental Right to Bodily Integrity. 

This Right to Bodily Integrity cannot be derogated from – even in times of War or Public Health Emergency.”

Anna de Buisseret U.K. Lawyer 30/7/22

Conclusion

Considering all of the above I hope you have clarity about why it is not okay to ask patients to declare their vaccination status.

Would you want society to require that you had to declare your medical status to access services?