Irrational fear of needles I want to get an injection (vaccination or treatment) for very good medical reasons. Unfortunately I have an irrational fear of needles (I don’t actually, it’s hypothetical). I can approach a doctor and say I want this injection, I can pay for it if needed, but as soon as a nurse arrives with a needle, I run away, and I definitely don’t consent to the injection at that point. What can my doctor do legally? Can he ask me to sign a form for example where I consent to the injection and allow him to give me the injection even if I strongly refuse a minute later? If I sign to give him permission to get two strong men to hold me in a chair to give me the injection, against my strong objections at that time, would that be legal?
Medical PoAs in General A medical power of attorney (PoA) is only valid (at least in most US states, the rules vary a bit) when the principal (the person granting the power), is unconscious, unable to make a choice, or legally incompetent. A fear, even an irrational fear, will not suffice to make a person incompetent. Maryland To deal with a specific example, consider the law of maryland. According to the article on &quot;Powers of Attorney&quot; from The People's Law Library : Unless otherwise stated in the advance directive, the directive goes into effect when the person becomes too sick to make a decision about his care. If the patient is unconscious or not able to communicate, then the attending doctor may make the determination that the advance directive is in effect. Otherwise two doctors must certify that the patient is not capable of making an informed decision about care. More specifically to use a Maryland advance directive (healthcare PoA) for the purpose described in the question, a person would need to create a written Advance directive under code §5–602(a). It would need to include language waiving the right to revoke the directive. The person would then need to be formally declared &quot;incapable of making an informed decision&quot; about injections by two physicians. Then, and only then, would anyone acting under the PoA be justified in restraining the principal and forcibly administering an injection. I suspect one would find many health care facilities very apprehensive of malpractice suits and other possible legal complications in such a situation, and thus very reluctant to undertake care in such circumstances. Specific Maryland Laws Maryland code section 5–602 reads, in relevant part: (a) (1) Any competent individual may, at any time, make a written or electronic advance directive regarding the provision of health care to that individual, or the withholding or withdrawal of health care from that individual. (a) (2) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in the absence of a validly executed or witnessed advance directive, any authentic expression made by an individual while competent of the individual’s wishes regarding health care for the individual shall be considered. ... (e) (1) Unless otherwise provided in the document, an advance directive shall become effective when the declarant’s attending physician and a second physician certify in writing that the patient is incapable of making an informed decision. (e) (2) If a patient is unconscious, or unable to communicate by any means, the certification of a second physician is not required under paragraph (1) of this subsection. §5–601 reads: (f) “Competent individual” means a person who is at least 18 years of age or who under § 20–102(a) of this article has the same capacity as an adult to consent to medical treatment and who has not been determined to be incapable of making an informed decision. ... (m) (1) “Incapable of making an informed decision” means the inability of an adult patient to make an informed decision about the provision, withholding, or withdrawal of a specific medical treatment or course of treatment because the patient is unable to understand the nature, extent, or probable consequences of the proposed treatment or course of treatment, is unable to make a rational evaluation of the burdens, risks, and benefits of the treatment or course of treatment, or is unable to communicate a decision. §5–604 reads: (a) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection, an advance directive may be revoked at any time by a declarant by a signed and dated written or electronic document, by physical cancellation or destruction, by an oral statement to a health care practitioner or by the execution of a subsequent directive. (a) (2) A declarant, knowingly and voluntarily, may elect in an advance directive to waive the right under paragraph (1) of this subsection to revoke any part or all of the advance directive, including the appointment of an agent, during a period in which the declarant has been certified incapable of making an informed decision under § 5–602(e) of this subtitle. (b) If a declarant revokes an advance directive by an oral statement to a health care practitioner, the practitioner and a witness to the oral revocation shall document the substance of the oral revocation in the declarant’s medical record. Alternate Procedure In many cases it is possible to treat and mitigate irrational fears. The process is not instant, but it is often effective, I understand. The hypothetical patient might be wise to undertake such treatment. It is possible to render a person unconscious without using an injection, although this has significant risks. That is not a legal issue, but a person could consent to such a procedure, and then be injected while unconscious. Whether a doctor would be willing to undertake this I cannot say. Some medications normally taken by injection can be administered by other routes, but I gather that some cannot, so this might or might not be a useful solution.
In the US the first amendment protections given to free expression make defamation claims significantly harder to pursue than in some other countries. o-called 'product defamation&quot; claims are generally harder yet. In the case of Dominion Voting Systems some of those sued seem to have made fairly specific allegations, which, if true, would involve probably criminal wrong doing. And please note that none of those suits have yet had a trial on the merits, to the best of my knowledge. We don't know if the statements complained of will be held to be defamatory or protected. Claims that a vaccine is not as safe as it should be, or the regulators were too quick to approve it, are harder to frame as defamatory of the drug companies. Since the government contracted in advance for enough vaccine to give a dose to everyone in the US (as I understand it) damages would be hard to prove. And there would be a risk of a PR backlash. It is not as if any of these companies has tried to file a suit and had it dismissed. They have not chosen to file, for which there could be many reasons.
One approach is to direct their attention to this publication from the NY Dept. of Health. It says "Physicians and hospitals are required by state law to maintain patient records for at least six years from the date of the patient's last visit". There is also a PDF printout which you can hand to them. If they still absolutely refuse, the publication explains about the appeals process and the consequence to the doctor, but it also provides some "rationalizations" that the staff-person might invoke (for example "Yes, but we charge for copying, I thought you meant for free" – they can charge up to 75 cents per page). There is no legal basis for their 2-year conclusion.
This would be illegal in Australia (Criminal Code Act 1995 part 10.7: any unauthorised impairment of electronic communication to or from a computer), the US (Computer Fraud and Abuse Act) and any other jurisdiction that I can think of. There is no exception allowing vigilante action in case a person has a reasonable belief that the material on a website is offensive or illegal. In general, the law does not allow immunization against criminal prosecution in case the victim of an attack is himself a criminal. Only the government has the right to punish criminals.
You give no jurisdiction but in general: First, police have no obligation to be honest. So, yes they can collect this without consent by e.g. taking hair from your hairbrush (with a warrant) or giving you a glass of water while interviewing you and getting it from your fingerprint oils (which may not actually be technically possible but never mind that). No, they can't take it by "force" by sticking a swab in your mouth. Yes, it will almost certainly go into a database. Of course, there are some jurisdictions where police are entitled to decide you are guilty based on the fact that you didn't pay them a bribe.
Your question is about "Would it be kidnapping if I was injured and someone took me to a hospital without my consent", so I don't understand these other answers which say "it depends on the situation". The key point is what you mean by "without my consent". Good Samaritan laws are also relevant, which offer defenses to people who do things that would otherwise be unlawful when they are doing it with good intentions to help someone who they believe is injured or would become injured without their intervention. The main things to consider are the degree of injury, which is a spectrum ranging from no injury at all to being dead, and whether the injured person is conscious. Are you so injured that you are unconscious? In most jurisdictions, being unconscious is considered as you consenting to any actions which are done with the intent of giving you medical assistance, which is on a spectrum of saying "hey are you ok?" or shaking you in order to wake you up, all the way up to treatment including major surgery. So by being unconscious it is usually automatically consent, but if you are awake and are refusing help or treatment, even if you could die if you didn't receive treatment, it would be easy to argue that you were not consenting and that any treatment/assistance etc was unlawful. This situation sometimes happens, and EMTs are often trained to wait until the person goes unconscious to then give them medical assistance/transport etc, but assisting someone before they go unconscious could still be argued as permissible, if the injured person was so distressed that they were unable to give/refuse consent, or at least if the assistor believed that to be the case. This is why if someone has a major medical problem and is unconscious, hospitals can resuscitate them and even perform surgery without them signing a consent form. By being unconscious, it is considered that they are consenting to any necessary surgery to help them, even including amputation or other negative consequences. Conversely, if someone has a valid Advance healthcare directive on file which forbids measures such as resuscitation, they will be considered not to consent, and will usually be left alone without life-saving assistance. Resuscitating/performing surgery on someone in this case can be cause for damages to the injured person, because it would have been clear that they did not consent to such assistance.
You may not assault a violator, you may notify the authorities. If your state has passed a law making it a felony to be outside without a mask, you can perform a citizen's arrest (but no state has such a law). So you cannot take the law into you own hands, and you run the risk of being arrested on felony assault charges if you do. There is always a significant risk that you are wrong about whether the order applies to a particular individual. You can always file a lawsuit, but you'd be in highly-experimental legal territory in terms of succeeding, specifically the claim that the person endangered your health (you can't sue on behalf of others, except e.g. as a parent on behalf of harm done to a child). For instance, nobody has successfully sued another person for going out in public having the flu on the grounds that they unreasonably put plaintiff at risk. You would have to experiment with that argument, to show that going out with a mask is reasonable and going out without a mask is unreasonable.
You can refuse to pay. The doctor can either accept your refusal or pursue the debt in court. If he pursues the debt you will probably lose. The Common Law position Your contract with the doctor was for him to do whatever he did and you to pay for it. Your contract with your insurer is for you to pay the premium and them to reimburse you for whatever they cover. The fundamental question is why you were taking the doctor's (via his secretary) advice on your contract with your insurer? The advice was wrong, however, it is difficult to see that there is a case for negligent misstatement; you would have difficulty showing there was a duty of care and even if you did showing what damage flowed from it since it is quite likely that you would have had the procedure notwithstanding the absence of cover, unless it was purely cosmetic. The Consumer Law position California probably has consumer protection laws regarding misleading and deceptive conduct - I have no idea what they are. If this is so then your doctor's statement was misleading - consequences may flow from this.