The essential importance of asserting the Right Informed Consent to preserve it is shown by the 2013 US Supreme Court case of Missouri vs McNeely, where the warrantless extraction of blood was ruled illegal as the defendant “refused to consent.” Had McNeely remained silent, the blood test would have been allowed – http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-1425_cb8e.pdf.Even “…diminished expectation of privacy does not diminish their privacy interest in preventing a government agent from piercing their skin. And though a blood test conducted in a medical setting by trained personnel is less intrusive than other bodily invasions, this Court has never retreated from its recognition that any compelled intrusion into the human body implicates significant, constitutionally protected privacy interests…” (page 15). – Ralph Fucetola JD.

%d bloggers like this: