Experimental philosophical bioethics and normative inference

. 2021 Nov 17;42(3-4):91–111. doi: 10.1007/s11017-021-09546-z

Case study 4. Triangulation
“Commonsense consent” [63]
In a series of experiments, Roseanna Sommers found that lay participants tended to think that deceived individuals could grant meaningful consent [63]. By contrast, in various legally relevant domains, including medicine, agreement or assent under deception is not considered valid. In this way, commonsense consent seems to diverge significantly from the notions of consent that prevail in the law and in the relevant philosophical literature. One reason this divergence matters is that lay people sit on juries that can be asked to establish whether consent was present—often without explicit guidance on how to understand consent. This empirical finding can motivate: (a) contextual education for jury members; (b) reform of the legal concept; or (c) some adjustment of both concepts in light of additional considerations (triangulation).

Case study 4. Triangulation

“Commonsense consent” [63]

In a series of experiments, Roseanna Sommers found that lay participants tended to think that deceived individuals could grant meaningful consent [63]. By contrast, in various legally relevant domains, including medicine, agreement or assent under deception is not considered valid. In this way, commonsense consent seems to diverge significantly from the notions of consent that prevail in the law and in the relevant philosophical literature. One reason this divergence matters is that lay people sit on juries that can be asked to establish whether consent was present—often without explicit guidance on how to understand consent. This empirical finding can motivate: (a) contextual education for jury members; (b) reform of the legal concept; or (c) some adjustment of both concepts in light of additional considerations (triangulation).