Informed Consent

[JVW]

Hey all, I figured I would post this in here because it's not a religious topic. I've recently had a few debates with others, in real life, about informed consent, or consenting in general.

In the medical industry informed consent is a thing, but when I try to define it I come up stuttering. I personally do not believe that informed consent is always present for the patient. I personally view the patient's responsibility regarding informed consent to be, at best, around a 3/10. My friend views patient responsibility much higher at around 9/10 as they are responsible adults and are responsible for their own health. My friend suggested that the ability to ask any question they want to the doctor and to the pharmacist as well as the package inserts in any medical intervention products constitute informed consent. While that may technically be true, I don't view that as the reality. I think because the entire system is in a position of authority that the dynamics are different and a lot of people naturally trust those in authority over them, and doctors take an oath to do no harm, so they have the patients best interest in mind. Also, I don't think it's reasonable to expect a non-expert who doesn't speak the language of medicine to be able to comprehend without an interpreter (i.e. a doctor or pharmacist).

One of my recent conversations then shifted. I have mentioned to a friend many times that I do not consent to using AI, and it bugs me that I can't say no to using it. Anywhere I am on the internet I am subjected to AI, and many times it is outside of my conscious awareness I'm sure. My friend suggested that I do consent any time I use the internet, by virtue of using the internet. I mentioned the long legal things on every app that people scroll through without reading and accept in order to use a product. A lot of these policies no longer have a "do not agree" button on them, and I think that's a problem too. Again, the idea being that by simply using the product one naturally consents. But those policies, again, are not translated for the layman to use, in order to properly understand them they would need an interpreter (a lawyer).

The last example of this is something I actually just learned about last night, Amazon Sidewalk. Any IOT product that's Amazon or Amazon Partnered has, by default, Amazon Sidewalk connectivity enabled. All of these devices are surveillance devices and as of this month they are using AI and facial recognition software (in Ring cameras, for instance) to monitor any activity they observe. There is also an application called Flock that works with the police to try and catch criminals though its facial recognition systems have errored and police have lost lawsuits from innocent victims of arrests. I don't consent to this, and I don't own any Amazon Sidewalk products, so how should I view consent here? I walk down the street and just by the act of walking past a neighbor's house who has a Ring doorbell I implicitly consent?

So how do y'all define "informed consent"? Do you believe it exists, for the most part, in the medical industry? What do you think about other forms of consent like with updated application policies? Thanks for your time regarding this topic.

[bluebell]

Interesting topic.

When I think of informed consent in regards to medical stuff, I think about how it is still a common practice for women to be given pelvic exams (this means people’s hands inside a woman’s vagina, manipulating her cervix and ovaries) while they are unconscious for an unrelated scheduled procedure. This is a way for med students and other medical professionals to learn and so that is how it is justified. However, the women aren’t told they will be getting a pelvic exam beforehand, and are not told one occurred afterwards either.  So they are never given the option to consent or deny. I honestly don’t know how such a thing is legal.

If you don’t know something is a possibility then how can you consent to it?  I think it’s insane to imply consent where any information is being withheld.

[Calm]

Toyota is getting sued for tracking drivers without letting them know and selling their info, including to insurance agencies, which may then raise rates.

https://www.autobodynews.com/news/toyota-progressive-accused-of-secret-driver-data-sharing#:~:text=A recently filed class action lawsuit alleges,knowledge or consent of the vehicle owners.

Quote

Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, the lawsuit centers on vehicles manufactured by Toyota from model year 2018 onward. Plaintiff Philip Siefke, a Florida resident who owns a 2021 Toyota RAV4 XLE, claims the automaker's tracking systems collect extensive data such as location, speed, acceleration, braking behavior, voice commands and even call logs, which are then shared or sold to third parties like Progressive Insurance.

According to the complaint, “tens of thousands” of Toyota owners across the U.S. may have been impacted by what the lawsuit describes as the unauthorized surveillance and monetization of driver behavior.

Siefke’s attorneys argue Toyota’s own privacy disclosures promise customer consent is required before sharing such data.

Toyota supposedly requires consent, but this guy discovered Progressive already had his info after he refused to give consent.  (I heard about the lawsuit in another source that had that info.
 

Quote

The class action cites a 2023 Mozilla Foundation report that found automakers are increasingly focusing on monetizing data instead of solely selling vehicles. Mozilla warned, “There’s probably no other product that can collect as much information about what you do, where you go, what you say, and even how you move your body […] than your car.”

In addition to behavioral data, the lawsuit claims Toyota gathers non-personal vehicle metrics like fuel efficiency and engine performance but combines them with identifiable information such as GPS routes, music preferences and phone contacts.

 

[JVW]

14 hours ago, Calm said:

Toyota is getting sued for tracking drivers without letting them know and selling their info, including to insurance agencies, which may then raise rates.

https://www.autobodynews.com/news/toyota-progressive-accused-of-secret-driver-data-sharing#:~:text=A recently filed class action lawsuit alleges,knowledge or consent of the vehicle owners.

Toyota supposedly requires consent, but this guy discovered Progressive already had his info after he refused to give consent.  (I heard about the lawsuit in another source that had that info.
 

 

I'll be interested to see how the court case goes. I imagine that before Toyota hatched this scheme that they spent a lot on lawyers to ensure that, while they may be bending the laws of consent, that they weren't explicitly breaking them. I saw a video a few years ago describing this sort of thing across a gamut of car manufacturers. Even after being informed of that, I still drive a vehicle made within the last decade, so I suppose I've given consent. *facepalm*

[JVW]

19 hours ago, bluebell said:

Interesting topic.

When I think of informed consent in regards to medical stuff, I think about how it is still a common practice for women to be given pelvic exams (this means people’s hands inside a woman’s vagina, manipulating her cervix and ovaries) while they are unconscious for an unrelated scheduled procedure. This is a way for med students and other medical professionals to learn and so that is how it is justified. However, the women aren’t told they will be getting a pelvic exam beforehand, and are not told one occurred afterwards either.  So they are never given the option to consent or deny. I honestly don’t know how such a thing is legal.

I hadn't heard about that, that's crazy, and yet I imagine in all of the paperwork that the women fill out pre-op there is some wording in there saying this can happen and they can't sue. If that is the case, does that mean they consented? Or should the doctor or nurse be including this possibility in their communication with the patient as they're filling it out? And if the patient is aware of it and doesn't consent then they may not be able to get the procedure. So at that point, could it be argued that a patient is coerced into submitting to the pelvic exam because if they don't then they can't get the surgery?

19 hours ago, bluebell said:

If you don’t know something is a possibility then how can you consent to it?  I think it’s insane to imply consent where any information is being withheld.

What do you mean by withheld? If the information is in lawyer or PhD medical language and it's on a form you sign, was the information withheld? What if the information is withheld from the doctors or obfuscated by scientific journals or pharmaceutical companies so the doctor can't inform the patient even though they give all the information they have? 

[MustardSeed]

So I totally agree that while on paper we give consent there is an ethics issue at play with regards to medical treatment and the power differential.  
 

I recently needed treatment and was told “we need an xray.”  Years ago I would have followed like a lamb to slaughter but now as a woman old enough for that sweet senior citizen discount on Tuesdays at Ross , I instead said “can you please use an X-ray from a recent provider I went to last week?” 
 

Also I feel more free to push back on other medical procedures I deem unnecessary.  My age and experience grants me confidence to do so.  
 

the consent forms we sign at the doc is ONLY to CYA the doc.  It does nothing to ensure we get fair treatment. 

[rpn]

Mozilla has worked to protect the privacy of consumers for a long time.   People might want to look at its material on keeping their privacy.   I use Mozilla as my main access to the internet for that reason.

[bluebell]

On 12/2/2025 at 10:34 AM, JVW said:

I hadn't heard about that, that's crazy, and yet I imagine in all of the paperwork that the women fill out pre-op there is some wording in there saying this can happen and they can't sue. If that is the case, does that mean they consented? Or should the doctor or nurse be including this possibility in their communication with the patient as they're filling it out? And if the patient is aware of it and doesn't consent then they may not be able to get the procedure. So at that point, could it be argued that a patient is coerced into submitting to the pelvic exam because if they don't then they can't get the surgery?

 

As far as i know it did not have to be mentioned (and still doesn't in a handful of states) in any paperwork that it could happen.  Thankfully, there would be no way for a hospital to refuse service for something necessary if the patient refused to consent for a completely medically unnecessary procedure, so there was no coercion in that way.  

Quote

What do you mean by withheld? If the information is in lawyer or PhD medical language and it's on a form you sign, was the information withheld? What if the information is withheld from the doctors or obfuscated by scientific journals or pharmaceutical companies so the doctor can't inform the patient even though they give all the information they have? 

I mean if no one ever tells you (and isn't written in any paperwork) that there is a possibility that someone is going to give you a rectal or prostate exam while you are under anesthesia to get your gallbladder removed, then there is no way for you to consent to it.  There is a difference between doing something secretly and something happening unexpectedly.

Edited December 4, 2025 by bluebell