Are We More Concerned About Proving Consent Than Actually Getting It
Today, a friend in the communications sector asked me how I handle consent forms when collecting audiovisual content from participants. His question took me back to a paper I once began writing before global conflicts, climate change, and the general absence of coherent government policies slowed my momentum. But the real issue has never left me. It is the ethics of consent.
A Lesson from Academia
Years ago, while defending my thesis proposal at Daystar University, the examiners pressed me on whether I might unintentionally coerce staff members who were part of my research. As a director, they argued, I held power. Even without intending to misuse it, my position alone could pressure staff to participate. They might respond not because they wanted to, but because I was their boss.
I could not simply assure them that I am humble and incapable of such behaviour. Academia does not operate on personal character references.
The compromise was that I would hire a research assistant to collect the data. They also required me to change the wording in my proposal from consent to informed consent. That small adjustment in language carried significant weight.
Where Informed Consent Comes From
The idea of informed consent did not emerge casually. It grew out of painful historical lessons. After the atrocities of medical experiments during the Second World War, the Nuremberg Code of 1947 declared that voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. Later, the World Medical Association adopted the Declaration of Helsinki in 1964 to guide ethical research involving human participants. In 1979, the Belmont Report formalised the principle of respect for persons, emphasising that individuals must be treated as autonomous agents capable of making decisions about their own participation.
These frameworks were born from abuse. They were meant to protect human dignity.
I complied with the academic requirements at the time. But in my professional work today, I continue to encounter very different understandings of consent. Some people assume that if they are signing a document, money must be involved. I often have to clarify that consent forms are not payment agreements. Others go to the opposite extreme and give me what they consider open permission, telling me I can take photos whenever I see them and use them however I wish.
Both situations reveal something deeper. There is a gap between signing a document and understanding what one is agreeing to.
The Problem With Proof
In many organisations, consent forms are written in legal language that appears designed primarily to protect the institution. That is understandable. History offers sobering reminders of why documentation matters. The Tuskegee Syphilis Study in the United States, which ran from 1932 to 1972, exposed how participants were misled and denied treatment without proper informed consent. Public outrage strengthened the demand for documented proof that people had agreed to participate in research.
Written consent therefore serves an important legal purpose. It protects institutions and researchers from future disputes. But my question is whether we have become more concerned with proof of consent than with the quality of consent itself.
A signature proves that a form was signed. It does not automatically prove that the person understood the implications.
Culture, Community, and Context
The tension becomes even clearer in culturally diverse settings. In some communities, elders are responsible for granting permission for activities within their jurisdiction. An individual may sign a consent form, but if community leaders have not granted approval, the act may be legally valid yet socially illegitimate. Anthropological research has long observed that Western models of individual consent do not always align with communitarian cultures where decision making is relational and collective.
In such cases, community consent alongside individual consent may be more ethically sound.
There are also literacy considerations. An illiterate participant may place a thumbprint on a document without understanding its contents. Yet if a researcher sits down, explains the purpose in the participant’s language, answers questions, and records that conversation with clear verbal agreement, that interaction may be ethically stronger than a thumbprint on a page filled with legal terminology. International ethical guidelines, including those from the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences, recognise that oral consent can be appropriate where literacy is limited, provided it is properly documented.
The spirit of informed consent is understanding. The form is only evidence.
A Necessary Re Examination
What concerns me is that our systems often prioritise the evidence over the understanding. We design processes that protect us from legal consequences but may not fully protect the dignity or autonomy of participants. We sometimes reduce consent to paperwork rather than a conversation.
If the historical roots of informed consent were about safeguarding human beings from exploitation, then we must constantly ask whether our current practices are fulfilling that purpose. Are participants truly informed, or are we simply insured?
Perhaps it is time to re examine our approach. Not to discard written consent, but to rethink its dominance as the only acceptable proof. Ethics must be sensitive to context, culture, literacy, and power dynamics. The first goal should be genuine understanding. The second should be appropriate documentation.
Understanding before paperwork.
If we lose that order, we risk honouring the letter of consent while betraying its spirit.
References
The Nuremberg Code. 1947.
World Medical Association. Declaration of Helsinki. First adopted 1964. Revised multiple times.
National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The Belmont Report. 1979.
Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male. United States Public Health Service. 1932 to 1972.
Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences. International Ethical Guidelines for Health Related Research Involving Humans. Latest revision 2016.
Marshall, P. 2007. Ethical challenges in study design and informed consent for health research in resource poor settings.
Molyneux, C., Wassenaar, D., Peshu, N., and Marsh, K. 2005. Even if they ask you to stand by a tree all day, you will have to do it. Community voices on the notion and practice of informed consent in rural Kenya.