Consent Under Pressure: The Puzzle of Third Party Coercion

Structural Influences on Consent Decisions in Participatory Health Research in Eswatini

Recognition that structural factors influence participation decisions and have potential to coerce participation, emerged relatively recently in research ethics literature. Empirical evidence to elucidate the nature of "structural" coercion and influence is needed to optimise respect for autonomy through voluntary informed consent. We present findings from ethnographic data about community co-researchers' experiences designing and implementing demographic and health survey consent procedures in participatory health research in Eswatini. Informed by Bourdieu's sociological theory of multiple types of capital/power, our findings detail structural influences on research participation decisions, highlight the inherently power-laden dynamics of consent interactions, and suggest that to be optimally ethical, research ethics principles and practices should consider and account for structural power dynamics.

Ethical Research Practice or Undue Influence? Symbolic Power in Community- and Individual-Level Informed Consent Processes in Community-Based Participatory Research in Swaziland

In community-based participatory research (CBPR), community-level consent is assumed to enhance ethical rigor, when obtained prior to individual informed consent. However, community leaders' permission to conduct research may influence individuals' agency to decline participation. This article presents findings of a Bourdieusian analysis of ethnographic data documenting CBPR in rural Swaziland. The findings reveal that the "symbolic power" of leaders who provide community-level consent constrains individual agency and reproduces existing relations of power, if individual informed consent is simply a procedure. However, when informed consent is a process that introduces notions of autonomy and rights, it can disrupt power relations. Implications for ethical CBPR practice, and ethnography's value for developing theory from real-world research ethics practice, are discussed.

Informed Consent in Asymmetrical Relationships: an Investigation into Relational Factors that Influence Room for Reflection

In recent years, informed consent has been suggested as a way to deal with risks posed by engineered nanomaterials. We argue that while we can learn from experiences with informed consent in treatment and research contexts, we should be aware that informed consent traditionally pertains to certain features of the relationships between doctors and patients and researchers and research participants, rather than those between producers and consumers and employers and employees, which are more prominent in the case of engineered nanomaterials. To better understand these differences, we identify three major relational factors that influence whether valid informed consent is obtainable, namely dependency, personal proximity, and existence of shared interests. We show that each type of relationship offers different opportunities for reflection and therefore poses distinct challenges for obtaining valid informed consent. Our analysis offers a systematic understanding of the possibilities for attaining informed consent in the context of nanomaterial risks and makes clear that measures or regulations to improve the obtainment of informed consent should be attuned to the specific interpersonal relations to which it is supposed to apply.

The Ethics of Allocating Uterine Transplants

In September 2014, a healthy male child was born in Sweden following a successful uterine transplantation (UTx). The event brought hope to many women without functional uteruses around the world. Having a child with a transplanted uterus is now possible, and as knowledge of the procedure proliferates and interest in UTx grows, it is important to begin thinking about how a scarce supply of uteruses will be allocated. This article represents a first discussion of the range of factors that must be considered in answering the allocation question. The primary issues addressed are (1) the motivation to seek treatment, (2) allocation by age, (3) child-rearing capacity, and (4) the amount of infertility treatment required. A set of eligibility and ranking criteria are presented. These criteria are not exhaustive but are intended to spark discussion about how uteruses can be allocated in a just manner.