The Power of Consent, Essay Example

Rightfully so, the importance of consent for society has been on quite the upswing lately.  A rise in respect and consciousness of others is certainly good and, in reality, it’s a shame this importance of consent is happening now rather than earlier.  There are dozens of early-research cases, dating as far back as the 1940’s, that consist of nonconsensual infection and experimentation; the Germans were guilty of this in the Holocaust and even the United States has been reported to have conducted experiments on unknowing victims in the 1940’s. Nothing is more important than consent, and under no circumstances should people’s bodies be used without their “okay”—regardless of how important the research is.

To be more specific, if there was an outbreak of Disease X and researchers needed to create some sort of vaccine or cure for Disease X, their subjects (which should not even be used immediately, but I’ll get to that later) should always, always be consensual.  If there is any sign of force, hesitancy, or “aggressive persuasion” throughout the process of selecting a subject, the experiment should be shut down immediately.

That being said, the Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) or Review Ethics Boards (REBs) should be especially strict when reviewing research in which humans are subjects.  If human health, wellbeing, or life is on the line, it should be the duty of IRBs and REBs to be sure that those lives stay protected.

And by “protected,” I especially mean “consensual.”  They should go to whatever lengths necessary—even if it is annoying and “unnecessary” to researchers—in order to be sure not only that consent was reached, but that they are very well informed before the experiments begin.

I, for one, would not be interested in taking part in an experiment. My partly-crazy, research-driven buddy next door, however, might want to; if a human is needed in order for the research to be finished, it would be irresponsible to turn away a willing participant (assuming, of course, that the participant is well-versed in what is happening in the experiment).

Softer sciences such as psychology and sociology, however, prove to be stickier.  The subject of anonymity is oftentimes questioned, especially when IRBs call for signatures or other “proof” that the anonymous sources are, in fact, outside sources.  To name a specific example, one researcher set out to question people who identified as transgendered to learn more about them; while she told the subjects that the study was “anonymous” (which it truly was), in order for her findings to hold any weight with IRBs, she had to get names and signatures from each of the subjects.  “I’m not going to use them,” she had to say, and she was being truthful, but there’s something uncomfortable about being told that you’re protected by a veil of anonymity just before being asked to write your name and a signature.

I don’t think there’s a solution to that problem.  A researcher that wants his or her research to go a certain direction could easily claim that an “anonymous” source told him or her something in order to affect the results.  In order to avoid that happening, the IRB or REB is an evil that is quite necessary; it sets high standards that are nearly impossible to reach, but it has to.

After all, what could be worse than false research that may eventually affect the entire country?  For example, let’s say that a certain researcher (that hated chocolate and everything that had to do with it) set out to prove a link between chocolate consumption and the likelihood of becoming a serial killer.  Without proof to say that this researcher’s “anonymous” sources are true and not falsified documents (in other words, this researcher needs to have names and specific, detailed information on where the researcher is getting his or her information; without that proof, there’s a chance that the information gathered was falsified in order to meet a certain goal (in this case, the goal is to eliminate chocolate entirely)), the researcher might be able to claim that chocolate causes you to become a serial killer.  Because the researcher’s information is protected under “anonymity,” the validity of the claims cannot be questioned. Chocolate will then feel bad, it will hide, and no one will be able to eat chocolate ever again.

While that’s certainly horrific, it does well to get the point across.  Research is about accuracy and true results in order to better society, not shape it based on what certain researchers want.  That being said, it’s the IRB and REBs’ jobs to get in the business of researchers to be sure that everyone is following order.

After death, however, is a bit more of a grey area. Should the body be allowed to be excavated if the owner of that body is already dead and gone?

My response to the question of digging up bones: it depends.  It’s true that there is always a grey area, which is why this is an especially hard question to answer.

If there is an opportunity for consent from family to be gathered, it certainly should be—I know that I for one would not like my future son or daughter’s body dug up for any type of experiment that I’m not okay with.  They can’t speak for themselves, sure, but that doesn’t make their body any less important; even scientists haven’t been able to duplicate the beauty that is human life and spirit, so there’s certainly something special about that. That being said, consents.  It always comes down to consent.

If consent from a relative can be obtained, it should be (and should be mandatory to have).  However, if consent is impossible (i.e. “let’s dig up the body of this person that lived six thousand years ago!”), science comes first.

Bottom line: consent comes first.  Human subjects should be allowed to contribute willingly after having been informed and a signature retrieved.

Works Cited

Borofsky, Robert. “Op-Ed Topic For 2015 Fall.” Center for a Public Anthropology. Center for Public Anthropology, 2015. Web. 2 Nov. 2015.