Informed at last, public deserve say

BEFORE a doctor performs a procedure, or administers a treatment with side effects, it is mandatory to give details of unwanted side effects.

The patient then decides to give “informed consent” or not. It’s time to apply this principle to Brexit.

When we voted in the referendum, we were told lies and fantasies. We weren’t informed about unwanted side effects. Now, we’re in the position to give or withhold informed consent for a people’s vote.

I don’t agree with those who say it questions our democracy to vote again. Democracy demands we do. For the sake of our NHS.

The reality of Brexit is vastly different from the fantasy mis-sold.

Pharma companies are spending hundreds of millions on contingency plans, according to a BMJ editorial.

This will be passed on to the NHS and taxpayers. EEA nationals play an increasingly important role in social care, where numbers employed rose by 68% between 2011 and 2016.

They’ve already stopped coming to the UK. Brexit is major surgery, says the BMJ, and we’re being wheeled into theatre on a vague consent form signed two years ago.

Only now can we properly weigh up the risks and benefits. To proceed without informed consent would be unethical, as it would be in medicine.