reply to post by adeclerk
Let the ATS members decide then what is meant by informed consent in the law then.
Look dude this is what the document says:
(a) PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES.—
The Secretary of Defense may not conduct (directly or by contract)—
(1) any test or experiment involving the use of a chemical
agent or biological agent on a civilian population; or
(2) any other testing of a chemical agent or biological
agent on human subjects.
—Subject to subsections (c), (d), and (e), the prohibition in subsection
(a)(WHAT YOU JUST READ) does not apply to a test or experiment carried out for any of the following purposes:
(1) Any peaceful purpose that is related to a medical,therapeutic, pharmaceutical, agricultural, industrial, or
research activity. (Hmm GMO's anyone?)
(2) Any purpose that is directly related to protection against toxic chemicals or biological weapons and agents. (HELLO? GLOBAL WARMING fraud, HAARP
project?, foreign weather manipulation devices or weapons)
(3) Any law enforcement purpose, including any purpose related to riot control. SEEN ANY OF THOSE LATELY?
Heres your part about consent:
(c) INFORMED CONSENT REQUIRED.—The Secretary of Defense
may conduct a test or experiment described in subsection (b) only
if informed consent to the testing was obtained from each human
subject in advance of the testing on that subject.
What is informed consent?
The ability to give informed consent will be governed by a general requirement of competency. In common law jurisdictions, adults are presumed
competent to consent. This presumption can be rebutted, for instance, in circumstances of mental illness or other incompetence. This may be prescribed
in legislation or based on a common-law standard of inability to understand the nature of the procedure. In cases of incompetent adults, informed
consent—from the patients or from their families—is not required. Rather, the medical practitioner must simply act in the patient's best interests
in order to avoid negligence liability. en.wikipedia.org...
Research funded by the United States government
Title 45 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 46 (45 CFR 46) is the primary set of Federal regulations regarding the protection of human subjects in
research and is often referred to as the common rule. It defines the laws, criteria for exemption, as well as definition and formulation of
institutional review boards, though some agencies have established their own implementation of this code that supersedes portions or all of 45 CFR 46.
The Department of Defense uses CFR 46 but has different exemption criteria. The Food and Drug Administration also applies a modified code that is
associated with research into development of any food, drug, or medical devices.
The code establishes what is required to be considered research activities, and for participants to be considered human subjects of research. The
definitions are written as such to include situations where the human is the subject of the experiment, their environment is manipulated by the
researchers, and data regarding their responses are collected. If the project does not meet these definitions (or there is minimal risk to
participants) then the project is exempt from IRB review and the requirements of informed consent. Generally this decision is made and documented by
an IRB. The common rule also provides definitions regarding whether institutions are engaged in research, interaction between investigators and
subjects, what an intervention is, and what information subjects can expect to remain private.
Assessment of consent
Informed consent can be complex to evaluate, because neither expressions of consent, nor expressions of understanding of implications, necessarily
mean that full adult consent was in fact given, nor that full comprehension of relevant issues is internally digested. Consent may be implied within
the usual subtleties of human communication, rather than explicitly negotiated verbally or in writing. In some cases consent cannot legally be
possible, even if the person protests he does indeed understand and wish. There are also structured instruments for evaluating capacity to give
informed consent, although no ideal instrument presently exists.
There is thus always a degree to which informed consent must be assumed or inferred based upon observation, or knowledge, or legal reliance. This
especially is the case in sexual or relational issues. In medical or formal circumstances explicit agreement by means of signature which may normally
be relied upon legally, regardless of actual consent, is the norm.
Brief examples of each of the above:
1.A person may verbally agree to something from fear, perceived social pressure, or psychological difficulty in asserting his true feelings. The
person requesting the action may honestly be unaware of this and believe the consent is genuine, and rely upon it. Consent is expressed, but not
2.A person may state he understands the implications of some action, as part of his consent, but in fact has failed to appreciate the possible
consequences fully and later deny the validity of his consent for this reason. Understanding needed for informed consent is stated to be present but
is in fact (through ignorance) not present.
3.A person may move from friendship to sexual contact on the basis of body language and apparent receptivity, but very few people on a date that
results in sexual contact have explicitly asked the other if his or her consent is informed, if he does in fact fully understand what is implied, and
all potential conditions or results. Informed consent is implied (or assumed unless disproved) but not stated explicitly.
4.A person below the age of consent may agree to sex, knowing all the consequences, but his or her consent is deemed invalid as he is deemed to be a
child unaware of the issues and thus incapable of being informed consent. Individual is barred from legally giving informed consent, despite what they
may feel (1)
5.In some countries (notably the United Kingdom), individuals may not consent to injuries being inflicted upon them, and so a person practicing sadism
and masochism upon a consenting partner may be deemed to have caused actual bodily harm without consent, actual consent notwithstanding. Individual is
barred from legally giving informed consent, despite what they may feel (2). See also Spanner case and 'consensual non-consensuality'.
6.A person signs a legal release form for a medical procedure, and later feels he did not really consent. Unless he can show actual misinformation,
the release is usually persuasive or conclusive in law, in that the clinician may rely legally upon it for consent. In formal circumstances, a written
consent will usually legally override later denial of informed consent (unless obtained by misrepresentation)
7.A person or institution (e.g., a school or childcare professional) exposes a minor to non-age-appropriate material, in any media format, without the
expressed informed consent of the minor's parent or legal guardian. Informed consent in this instance goes to the argument of competency on the part
of the minor. An example would be the showing of an R rated movie to a 12-year-old by an educational institution without the informed consent of the
parent or legal guardian.
edit on 18-8-2011 by Iiquiringmind because: (no reason given)