consent

[BobF64]

While Sally is not about may I try and clarify ?

You've sensibly dispatched her to the kitchen?

So the statement "When a person cannot safely say 'no' then their 'yes' is not consent" is pretty open to interpretation, and we would welcome comments in whichever direction you like.

The answer is "it depends on the situation".

In most cases the law requires you to be able to make the choice yourself, and endeavours to protect you in the event your consent was not gained fairly, however there are circumstances where the law permits others to make the choice because you cant.

2 that come to mind are when someone else has power of attorney over you and when you are in need of medical help and a suitably competent and/or empowered person has to make a choice on your behalf.

If the term "safely" implies they are under duress, then indeed, "yes" is not consent.

[g8ina]

rapid intake of breath between teeth

I wudnt dare I asked her if it was OK before she went to work....

[peterb]

Asking for consent implies a choice. If there is no real choice, for example, because of coercion, or the option of saying no might invoke unacceptable consequences, then there is no real choice and the concept of consent becomes meaningless.

[blueball]

So the statement "When a person cannot safely say 'no' then their 'yes' is not consent" is pretty open to interpretation, and we would welcome comments in whichever direction you like.

OK here is my comment:

"When a person cannot safely say 'no' then their 'yes' is not consent" is NOT open to interpretation. It is a statement of fact and the original question is still a non question.

[kalniel]

Asking for consent implies a choice. If there is no real choice, for example, because of coercion, or the option of saying no might invoke unacceptable consequences, then there is no real choice and the concept of consent becomes meaningless.

Was about to say something similar. They aren't being asked for consent, so the statement is self-evident. It's not a bacon sandwich either.

[peterb]

The one that made me smile was the old visa waiver programme for entry into the USA. The form stated that completion was not mandatory (in that no legal penalty applied if it wasn't completed) but thern went on to say that failure to complete "could result in refusal of admission to the country". So it was informed consent, and there was a choice, but since the purpose of beong on the aircraft was to visit the USA, the choice was largely illusory since the alternative was getting the next flight back home!

[BobF64]

OK here is my comment:

"When a person cannot safely say 'no' then their 'yes' is not consent" is NOT open to interpretation. It is a statement of fact and the original question is still a non question.

Again, it depends, the law can be funny sometimes.

[kalniel]

The one that made me smile was the old visa waiver programme for entry into the USA. The form stated that completion was not mandatory (in that no legal penalty applied if it wasn't completed) but thern went on to say that failure to complete "could result in refusal of admission to the country". So it was informed consent, and there was a choice, but since the purpose of beong on the aircraft was to visit the USA, the choice was largely illusory since the alternative was getting the next flight back home!

The new one is just as amusing: Are you a terrorist? Yes/no

[IronWarrior]

When they say no, they really mean yes.

[jim]

The new one is just as amusing: Are you a terrorist? Yes/no

I think the UK one actually asks that, although maybe not quite the same wording.

[Lucio]

I actually have to wonder at what point do we accept that someone had "no choice" but to agree, at what point do we surrender our free will? Do we have to be threatened with death? with pain? with humiliation? What about when we've willingly chosen to become intoxicated?

Consent is a tricky thing in some situations, whilst the obvious thing for civilised people is to err on the side of caution, sometimes it can be really tricky....

[Saracen]

When a person cannot safely say 'no' then their 'yes' is not consent

I find that impossible to comment on, in any depth, without some context.

For instance, in a situation where force or threat of force is used, then I'd say a coerced consent is no consent at all. On the other hand, a legally valid medical presumption of consent in the absence of a specific refusal is consent, even if the person whose consent would normally be required is incapable of giving it .... such as life-saving intervention to an unconscious accident victim.

I'd also want clarification of what is meant by "safely".

For instance, in the case of medical intervention, then as far as I'm concerned, any legally competent adult has the right to refuse consent for a medical procedure whether it is "safe" to do so or not. It is, for instance, my right to refuse an operation, or even a blood transfusion, no matter the risk that doing so might put me at provided I'm an adult, and legally competent. No doctor has the right to override that and force treatment against my will.... and I have to say, one who tried would be putting his/her own health at serious risk.

There are so many variations and situations, from rape to organ donation, that I can't really work out what the thread is about, and without that, it's pretty meaningless to me.

[billythewiz]

Like just about everyone else, I was confused about the context of the question.
I initially thought it might be a reference this story, that came out the day before the OP.

The curious use of the word "safely" implies some kind of imprisonment, coercion or general threat.

I also wondered if it might be a question about abortion clinics and the recent moves to try and force patients to have "independent" counselling before proceeding.

Then we were given some extra clues ...

In another forum, ... this question of "consent" came up recently. We have had a lively discussion in there but we thought it might be interesting to see some other (non church group) comments.

So what else might cause a "church group" to have a "lively discussion" about consent ?
I doubt that it was honour killings. I doubt a "church group" would have much disagreement about murdering a girl by forcing her to drink bleach. Though that would be a good example of where "a person cannot safely say 'no'" (in the Shafilea Ahmed case to an arranged marriage).

Perhaps the heated debate was caused by the issue of date rape. If a drunk girl allegedly consents, is she allowed to retract consent after the fact ? (In Sweden she can !) If a girl is sufficiently intoxicated is she even capable of consent ?

A related topic is rape in marriage. This is one that is likely to get a church group all riled. UK law is pretty clear on the topic, but as with the most topics the bible is less clear. I read 24 paragraphs of that answer before getting a hint of an answer. I challenge you all to find the paragraph that contains a definitive answer (there is one, I just bet you'll get bored before you find it)!

So what about Saracen's points on medical consent ? His examples are pretty clear cut, but what about switching off life support machines in the case of brain death ?

And finally there's the case of assisted death.

For me, any situation where a person makes a different decision when they are moved to a "safe" environment means the original consent was not valid. Any situation where a person regrets their decision (e.g. because they were drunk) is just tough. Note, date rape does not involve their decision, a one night stand does.

Any situation where a person cannot make their own choice (brain death), should require consent (i.e. the right to veto) of an independent, professionally body.

Any situation where a person may be pressurised or cajoled by group with a vested interest (i.e. family member in arranged marriage, abortion or assisted death), should require an independent group to judge whether the person is being allowed to make their own choice.

Any "independent" group that always advocates the same thing (e.g. catholics always advising against abortion) is not independent, it is a pressure group and such is not suitable as an advocate.

[Blaidd59]

thank you everyone do you mind if I use some of your responses with my Church group for an ' outsider perspective'

[Saracen]

thank you everyone do you mind if I use some of your responses with my Church group for an ' outsider perspective'

I don't mind, if you want mine. I would still like to know, at some point, what the context you had in mind was, though. It might open up a more detailed response in this thread.

[blueball]

thank you everyone do you mind if I use some of your responses with my Church group for an ' outsider perspective'

No problem with that.