Medical Malpractice and Informed Consent

If a medical doctor treats you without fully explaining the treatment, then that medical doctor is guilty of the crime of assault and battery, and is also liable to the patient for malpractice. When there is any possiblity of a negative side effect, at all, the patient must be fully informed of that possiblity. Additionally, the medical doctor must clearly state what the diagnosis is and the proposed treatment, otherwise, the medical doctor's treatment is unlawful medical experimentation in violation of the Neuremberg Treaty of 1945, which is enforceable against the medical doctor, in the United States as a federal criminal and civil cause of action for damages. In the case of treatment for an alleged heart problem, or cholesterol, for example, the medical doctor must inform the patient of the consequences of no treament or modified treatment. Often, the statistical studies state the only effect of refusing medical treatment would a slight reduction in life span at the age of 89 years old, or so. It is rational for any patient to refuse inconvenient medical treatment or medical treatment with negative side effects, in exchange for giving up 5 days or 5 months of a person's life, at age 89. Put another way, it is rational for a person to have a steak dinner every Friday night, for life, in exchange for having a life span of 5 days less, at age 89. Medical doctors must start explaining the above factors to their patients in order to avoid criminal and civil liablity.
(C)Copyright 2010 by Anthony J. Fejfar

The Alleged Crime of Criminal Insanity is Unconstitutional and Void

In some states, there appears to a statuory crime called Criminal Insanity. One such statute is found in 18 Pennsylvania Statute Section 314. This statute states that a person can be found guilty of Criminal Insanity if that person has plead not guilty be reason of insanity, and the judge refuses to make that finding, and instead finds that the person is "guilty but mentally ill" and is then criminally sentenced. This type of Crimnal Insanity statute is clearly unconstitutional, and constitutes a violation of Natural Law. Magna Charta and Substantive Due Process, follow the United States Supereme Court cas of Lochner v. New York, provides that any criminal statute must be in accordance with reason, and, additionally, cannot diverge substantially from the Common Law crimes of England. The English Common law requires that a crime, to be a crime, must have as an element of proof of that crime, Mens Rea (specific criminal intent to commit the crime) and Actus Reas (an overt, physical act, constituting the crime). In other words, status crimes, as defined as crimes, violate Magna Charta, Natural Law, and Substantive Due Process. Thus, the enactment of a statute or common law crime involving status, is unconstituional and illegal. The Criminal Insanity statue in Pennsylvania and other states is clearly unconstitutional as violating both Substantie and Procedural Due Process. First of all, the Crime of Criminal Insanity is clearly unconsitutional because it involves a status crime where no finding of specific criminal intent, nor an overt act, is required for the crime. Next, you cannot glom together criminal and civil law. If "Criminal Insanity" is a crime, then it is unconstitutional under Substantive and Procedural Due Process. If "Criminal Insanity" is a civil offense, then there can be not use of the word "criminal" in the statute, and there can be not coeerced incarceration or involuntary commitment. Using civil law to put a person in jail, on a psychiatric ward, or in a nursing home, with the use of coercive force, violates the Liberty interest of the defendant, and Magna Charta, and Substantive Due Process, and is therefore, clearly unconstitutional, and, any judge or prosecutor or psychiatrist, who attempts to illegally confine such a defendant, commit the crimes of False Imprisonment and Section 1983 and Section 242.