There's an interesting discussion to be had about informed consent in a medical context, and what really counts. I think taking a maximalist view of "this pers

There's an interesting discussion to be had about informed consent in a medical context, and what really counts. I think taking a maximalist view of "this person actually knows what they're signing up for" would lead to almost no one being capable of consenting to almost any treatment. Do you actually know the pharmacology of acetaminophen? Are you aware of all the possible complications of an appendectomy? Can you truly grasp the difference between a one in a thousand occurrence and a one in a million occurrence? The minimalist view of "this person said yes and so the treatment is ethical" is of course, also fraught. I'm reminded of the potential for COVID vaccine challenge trials. Tens of thousands of people signed up to be deliberately infected with COVID so that we could complete the vaccine trials more quickly, and in the process save far more lives. Medical ethicists ultimately prevailed in not allowing such trials for the vaccines, arguing that no one involved could truly consent given the unknown effects of COVID. But what about all the people that didn't consent to getting COVID the old-fashioned way, who wouldn't have had they had a vacccine? Should we let paternalism prevail over heroics?