The future of informed consent psychology is being debated by academics and practitioners, who argue that ethical standards have not kept pace with technological advances and that more needs to be done to make informed consent available to the public.
The research is based on an extensive survey of 2,200 Australians aged between 18 and 49.
It found that more than half of those surveyed had never heard of the concept, while only a quarter had ever heard of informed consents, which can be legally induced with a doctor’s permission.
But how is informed consent defined?
The definition is complex and there is little consensus on the issue.
Some researchers have argued that informed consent means an agreement between two people or between a group of people who are aware of each other’s rights.
Others have argued it is the consent of all parties to a consensual activity.
Some legal scholars have argued for the use of consent to ensure consent is voluntary.
Others argue that consent is the act of a person agreeing to a situation and is not voluntary.
The ABC understands the survey found that nearly half of respondents did not know what informed consent was.
In the survey, the authors asked respondents what they believed informed consent meant, and the responses were split between those who believe informed consent to the “most” of the actions was the best possible approach and those who think the most appropriate form of informed and informed consent would be to “make the agreement and then be informed that we will not do anything unless you agree”.
The researchers found that there was a wide range of opinion on what informed and knowledgeable consent should be.
Respondents said that they believed consent should involve “clear, unambiguous, and explicit language, and clear and unambiguous and explicit knowledge that it was not a waiver of your right to remain silent and that the agreement is not a contract between you and your doctor”.
The survey also found that only 22 per cent of respondents believed consent could be inferred from a medical condition, such as having HIV or a history of sexual abuse.
While most people agreed that people with health conditions could consent to some of the things in the survey (e.g. the use or misuse of a medicine), most of the people who did not agree did not think that consent could mean they had been coerced.
While it is true that people can be coerced into agreeing to certain things in life, the vast majority of people (72 per cent) said they believed that consent was not an absolute right.
Dr Katherine Smith, who conducted the survey with Dr Katherine Bowerman from the Australian Psychological Society, said that “if we want to make it clear that consent can be inferred by someone’s health conditions, that we should be making it clear, that’s a good thing.”
But we need to be clear that it can also be inferred, that if someone is not informed, then there’s no consent at all.
“Dr Smith said that the results of the survey showed that “it’s a challenge for people who want to engage in consent to engage with the conversation”.”
The challenge is that people have different views on the meaning of informed.
So they’re often more hesitant to say, ‘Well, yes, I would want my doctor to tell me that I can do that.’
“The survey found a wide variety of opinions on what consent should mean.
For example, more than 50 per cent said that a person should have the right to be able to withdraw consent.
However, when asked about what consent was for, people varied between “I think consent should include the opportunity for you to withdraw, I think consent must include the ability to withdraw” and “I believe consent can include the possibility for you and/or your doctor to withdraw”.
There was also disagreement over what informed means.
Some people argued that people should be able use informed consent, while others believed it should be used only when “the person can’t be sure that the consent has been given”.
However, Dr Smith said this definition was “not as clear as people might like”.
Dr Smith told the ABC that the survey was based on “very, very large samples” and that “there are going to be differences of opinion about how to interpret the results”.
Dr Bowermans research found that people were divided on the question of whether consent could only be inferred when someone knew about the circumstances of the consent.
Responses varied widely, with people ranging from 51 per cent who believed it was a right to withdraw to 49 per cent.”
It may be a little hard to draw a clear line between people’s beliefs, and some people think they should have a right, while some people would prefer that the right be more vague,” Dr Smith told ABC Radio National’s PM Breakfast program.”
When you look at the question and then look at what you actually do in the situation, that may be where you see the right is.
“Dr Bowers also said that there were some people who were concerned about the impact of the study on the health of Indigenous Australians.”
I think one of the