"Science wars—How much risk should soldiers be exposed to in military experimentation?"
A bioethical justification for throwing people under the bus :(
Non-voluntary informed consent
I was working on something and stumbled upon this stunning 2015 paper that lays out the concept of “non-voluntary consent” to being experimented on.
In this case, the context for the non-voluntary consent is military service, and the premise is as follows:
Biowarfare is increasingly taking the place of traditional combat
Soldiers have already agreed to the risk of being killed
So….
And yeah, it is good to get the soldier’s “informed consent” but it can be non-voluntary consent
Just like that, uttered under one breath: “Non-voluntary informed consent.” The concept is so upside-down that think it’s impossible to say “non-voluntary informed consent” with a straight face without letting go of a little piece of your soul.
And because there has been a big psychological push since 2001 for treating regular citizens as “soldiers” and pawns of the security state, it is not tremendously surprising what happened to “informed consent” in…
