|
hapistan -> RE: Consent vs informed consent (10/6/2008 5:28:30 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Rover
quote:
ORIGINAL: hapistan
my take on it, is that the "sin" so to speak, is not the lack of consent, but the equally lousy one that happened before, of lies and deception?
it might seem picky on my part (and maybe it is) but if a guy goes into a bar, convinces a girl he's a millionaire rock star, she sleeps with him, then finds out he's been lying. he's a liar, but despite the fact that consents to sex has been given on the basis of a lie, he's not a rapist. he's a liar
Actually, although he might not be guilty of a criminal act, he could be found guilty in civil court and ordered to pay a financial penalty.
Lying removes one's ability to offer informed consent.
John
well, i've nothing against people being held accountable for deception, and while i am familiar with how informed consent applies to medicine (I'm not claiming to be a doctor or anything btw!) but surely, if informed consent applied in a much wider context, then if it applied to sex, then without informed consent it'd be equivalent to date rape? since where informed consent is legally required, its the only form of consent that can be given, if a doctor hasn't fully informed me before i've been operated on regardless of what i've signed, I've not consented to it.
of course i'm entirely speculating here, i know little enough of british law, let alone US.
|
|
|
|
