When we start talking about consent in a larger, social context it becomes a veritable moral and ethical minefield; no doubt about it.

However — at the end of the day, consent is still a personal matter.

This is why in medical ethics (as well as in the disability field), we talk about informed consent.

In the example you used, a doctor tells you "take this drug it will save your life" and you consent. You then find out afterwards that it will blind you. Yes, you did initially give your consent, but you were not appropriately informed if you didn't know of the consequences of blindness. Would you still have chosen to take the drug knowing you may go blind?

On the other side of this is informed denial, which the medical profession has a really, really big problem with. The problem is that all doctors (irrespective on your views on the profession) truly do believe and hold to the Hippocratic Oath: above all, do no harm. It is often heart-breaking to have a patient deny treatment you know will ease their pain. You do everything possible to properly inform them, and still they will not consent. It's bloody hard! And herein lies the ethical issue... as a medical professional, do you accept the informed denial of treatment? Whose will is more important?

I don't feel there is an easy answer to this.

The problem in the disability field is two-fold: can the participant give their consent; and if they do, do they truly understand what they are consenting to, given their intellectual disability?

A frikkin' minefield!

😊🙏🏽☯️