This is a special post for quick takes by mako yass. Only they can create top-level comments. Comments here also appear on the Quick Takes page and All Posts page.
There's something very creepy to me about the part of research consent forms where it says "my participation was entirely voluntary."
Do they really think an involuntary participant wouldn't sign that? If they understand that they would, what purpose could this possibly serve, other than, as is commonly the purpose of contracts; absolving themselves of blame and moving blame to the participant? Which would be downright monstrous. Probably they just aren't fucking consequentialists, but this is all they end up doing.
This is a minor thing, but it adds an additional creepy garnish: Nothing is 100% voluntary, because everything is a function of the involuntary base reality that other people command force and resources and we want to use them for things so we have to go along with what other people want to some extent. I'm at peace with this, and I would prefer not to have to keep denying it, and it feels like I'm being asked to participate in the addling of moral philosophy.
If someone explicitely writes into their consent forms "my participation was entirely voluntary" and the participation isn't voluntary it might be easier to attack the person running the trial later.
Important to remember and stand by the Nuremberg Code in these contexts.
3lazaruslong
The reason is to prevent the voluntary participant from later claiming that their participation was involuntary and telling that to the IRB.
'Well if your participation was involuntary, why did you sign this document?'
It kind of limits the arguments someone could make attacking the ethics of the study. The attacker would have to allege coercion on the order of people being forced to lie on forms under threat.