The patient's choice of treatment method must never be overridden when vaccinating during a pandemic

Text by the Swedish politician Elsa Widding on some Covid Vaccine differences

In the text below by the Swedish politician Elsa Widding one can see some differences concerning the Covid vaccines. The examples are simplifications but are interesting to take into regard. Her text is a response to an official Swedish investigation (SOU 2023:73) on how to handle vaccine choices where the physician, Dr. Anders W Jonsson, wants to deny the public the right to choose a vaccine option during a Pandemic. This goes against the Swedish Patient Act (2014:821) on the right to information, consent, and patient participation/patient influence. In her text, Elsa Widding does not elaborate on the general understanding of informed consent, vaccines, or other treatment options than vaccines. I will also add more resources of importance.

“Investigator Anders W Jonsson suggests in his report on the evaluation of the implementation of vaccination against COVID-19 that the patient's choice of treatment method should be able to be overridden during vaccination during a pandemic. Already during the last pandemic, this right was violated when the public was not allowed to choose which vaccine he or she preferred. During the press conference, Anders W Jonsson claimed that this had no significance because the vaccines were equivalent. This claim is flat-out wrong and, astonishingly, the government's expert investigators are very poorly read. Pfizer's injections contain 30 mg modified mRNA and were designed for two doses, while Moderna's contain a full 100 mg modified mRNA and were designed for only one dose. The well-informed and engaged patient could find this out but was denied the opportunity to choose. It eventually turned out that Moderna's more than three times stronger vaccine was still given in two doses, which led to many young men suffering from myocarditis, a very serious condition that in severe cases can lead to cardiac arrest. FHM stopped vaccination with Moderna's vaccine Spikevax in October 2021 for people younger than 30 years. The claim that the vaccines are equivalent is not only incorrect but for some people even life-changing. AstraZeneca's vaccine against COVID-19 was also stopped in March 2021 when a large number of side effects in the form of blood clots could be ascertained. Against this background, removing the right to choose a treatment method indicates a contempt for the individual's right to decide what is to be injected into his or her body. The investigator Anders W Jonsson shows large knowledge gaps in this area, which means that one can rightly question the relevance of the investigation as a whole.”

References:

Elsa Widding Patientens val av behandlingsmetod får inte åsidosättas vid vaccinering under en pandemi

SOU 2023:73

2014:821

Additional -

World Council for Health on how the Covid Vaccines are human rights violations:

Plasmidgate: Making a Mockery of International Human Rights Law & Medical Ethics

Trust and Freedom EU Parliamentary Citizen Initiative petition for legally strengthened informed consent:

If you can put this text in digital translation from Swedish - idea on how to strengthen informed consent and serious concerns on Sars-Cov-2, COVID-19 mRNA injections, freedom of speech, brain integrity, surveillance, mass media - “Questioning the intentions surrounding Covid-19 vaccination: right to criticize, patient safety or punishable as terrorism?"