Is a tattoo providing medical instructions legally binding? This article describes an 81-year-old woman who got a tattoo reading &quot;Don't euthanize me&quot; to express her medical wishes if she were incapacitated. The Calgary grandmother recently had the words “Don’t euthanize me” tattooed on her arm. “It’s drastic, but this very clearly says, ‘I’m going to live until God’s ready for me’,” Would medical instructions tattooed in this way be legally binding in the absence of more recent legal documentation (e.g. an advance healthcare directive)? For the purposes of this question, let's assume that the tattoo gave an explicit medical directive that would not be the default medical procedure (e.g. &quot;do not resuscitate&quot;, &quot;don't intubate me&quot;).
The specifics are set at the provincial level. In British Columbia, consent is required for medical treatment except in certain circumstances like being incapable of consenting. However, the law also says that A health care provider must not provide health care under section 12 if the health care provider has reasonable grounds to believe that the person, while capable and after attaining 19 years of age, expressed an instruction or wish applicable to the circumstances to refuse consent to the health care. In some circumstances (i.e. as laid out in section 12), such a tattoo could trigger a "DNR" effect, but the "must not" provision has a narrower range of application, where it limits the exception to the consent requirement in the case of life saving emergency measures for an unconscious patient. More general advance directives can be given, but such a directive has more detailed requirements, and usually takes the form of filling out a printed form and including the signature of the individual and two witnesses. The aforementioned tattoo would not pass muster as a legal advance directive (even if the text were "don't transfuse me"). It might suffice under the "reasonable ground to infer consent refused" clause.
You can probably refuse A contract cannot be changed unilaterally unless the contract provides for unilateral change - its unlikely your contract does. In any event, the person with such a power of unilateral change has to exercise it reasonably. It is an implied term of employment contracts that the employee must obey the lawful and reasonable directions of the employer. So the question is, is the requirement to use a fingerprint time clock both lawful and reasonable? Well, at first blush, without genuine consent on your part (and &quot;do it or get fired&quot; is not genuine consent) this would appear to breach the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act. The biometric data of your finger is personal information and, as such, it can only be collected with your consent. A similar factual case was decided in queensland (Note: the Australian law will be different in some ways from the Canadian law but they both require consent for collection) last year in that way.
A company can mandate getting a flu shot as a condition of employment. The government can do the same (for its employees) – Washington state has done so at least for covid. Some individuals qualify for a disability accommodation, so they would be exceptions (e.g. they could be moved to working away from the public). A sincere religious conviction also gives rise to a religious-accommodation exemption. This guidance addresses the question of what constitutes a sincerely held religious belief.
It depends on where you live, but &quot;restrain&quot; doesn't mean telling a person that they have to stay put, it implies either a physical blockage (locking the door) or a threat of force, and neither of those are present or suggested by the sign. We don't know what the consequences are, for example they might report you to your parents or even restrain you if you are a minor (that's who is in most &quot;gym classes&quot;). If you are an adult, the consequence could be some contractual sanction (read the contract) or termination of the contract for breach (read the contract). You can simply ask a supervisor how they intend to enforce this restriction.
Pursuant to well-established law in the US, the person carrying the fetus (conventionally, the mother) has the right to an abortion. Doing so might be a breach of contract. Some jurisdictions flat out ban surrogacy contracts (Arizona, D.C), perhaps even penalizes (Michigan, NY), or declares void (Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Nebraska). In California, surrogacy contracts are legal and enforceable. One possible challenging scenario is that the mother refuses a requested abortion, the other is that one or both of the intended parents seek to block the mother from getting an abortion. The former case in the case of Melissa Cook, where there was an attempt made to reduce the number of pregnancies from three – Cook carried the fetuses to term despite a contrary request from the intended parents (no action was filed to attempt to force an abortion). There has apparently been no attempted case to force a mother to carry a fetus to terms because of a contract (i.e. order for specific enforcement). Under present US law, the woman carrying the fetus has the exclusive right to choose to terminate a pregnancy. No statutes or case law suggest that a surrogacy contract will override that right, and some laws explicitly deny the ability to force a mother to have an abortion (Utah Code Ann. §78B-15-808(2) &amp; (3), Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §160.754(g), Fla. Stat. Ann. §63-213(3)(b)). A mother could be sued for breach of contract if she terminates a pregnancy – the intended parents may have suffered a financial loss from that decision, but that depends on the state.
If they do a treatment which you didn't consent to and harm you they risk being sued. As such, they get you to sign a consent form to prove you agreed to the treatment and were informed about what was going on and any material risks. They had implied verbal consent from you which is enough legally, but there's a risk that if it went wrong you could claim you didn't consent, they lied about what treatment you had, and they illegally did it. As an example, they often drip something into your eye which can sometimes cause blurry vision for a while. If you had blurry vision after and crashed your car you could theoretically sue them because you say you didn't consent to that and they have no proof you did.
No, in germany there is no universal requirement as to form (Formfreiheit). This includes associating a signature with a name in block letters. In principle you can enforce a contract in court even if the written contract does not identify the contracting parties by spelled out name, but by signature only. It stands to reason there is no benefit in omitting the full names. The legislature implemented elevated form requirements for certain legal transactions by mandating the use of a notary. Here, again, there is no requirement as to put a plain text name next to your signature. The link between signature and person is established via the notary’s documentation. You could put an alias “Donald Duck” next to your signature, the notarial deed will indicate that in fact Kalle Richter signed the document. As far as I am aware all european-union legal transactions will need to go through their official channels. It is simply not possible, for example, to establish a European Economic Interest Grouping on a scrap of paper. Thus there is no issue and in turn no regulation. One thing is for sure, the european-union does not impose a “minimum framework” on its member states. I recollect there are some directives regarding electronic signatures, but that is a different story now.
The relevant NY law originally said that &quot;Written instrument&quot; means any instrument or article, including computer data or a computer program, containing written or printed matter or the equivalent thereof, used for the purpose of reciting, embodying, conveying or recording information, or constituting a symbol or evidence of value, right, privilege or identification, which is capable of being used to the advantage or disadvantage of some person. The modification adds: For the purposes of this article, a card provided to a person by a vaccine provider indicating the date a person received a vaccination against COVID-19, the type of vaccine and its lot number, and bearing a government logo or other indication that it is created by a governmental instrumentality, shall be considered a written instrument. This is an unnecessary modification: a covid card is plainly a &quot;written instrument&quot;. Working through the definitions of falsely made, completed or altered, we see that a covid card modified as described is a forged document, and always has been one. Actually using a forged instrument is a crime, and has been so, and even possessing one is as long as you possess or utter it &quot;with knowledge that it is forged and with intent to defraud, deceive or injure another&quot;. So, (1) it is a crime in New York, (2) it has long been a crime in NY and (3) is probably a crime in other states, when there forgery laws are functionally equivalent to NY laws. For example, in Washington, RCW 9a.60.020 (1) A person is guilty of forgery if, with intent to injure or defraud: (a) He or she falsely makes, completes, or alters a written instrument or; (b) He or she possesses, utters, offers, disposes of, or puts off as true a written instrument which he or she knows to be forged. It does not matter if you forge a document in a state where it is legal (if any such state exists) and then transport it to a state where forged documents are illegal. If you possess it and intend to use it knowing that it is forged, it is a crime.