Informed consent?
Nov. 25th, 2005 05:02 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
dennyhttp://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1888035,00.html
I don't like this one at all. Okay, people who get so pissed that they can't remember their own names are obviously putting themselves in a vulnerable condition through their own choice, but then I'm not one to lecture about the perils of substance abuse. Regardless of the state you're in though, consent is still a positive action - saying 'yes' - the lack of a negative action is not the same thing. And informed consent requires the person giving their consent to be in a position to judge the consequences of their decision...
I dunno, she decided to get that hammered, but even so... I think the guy is at best an idiot and at worst a shit for sleeping with her in that state even if she did come on to him, and obviously the potential very clearly exists for it to have been entirely non-consensual. The problem is that there's not really any way to tell (is there?), if she's going to get herself into that much of a state that she can't remember anything about it.
I suppose I can take this as ratification of my personal policy of not sleeping with anybody who seems to be drunk, unless we have a well-established sexual relationship already. The fact remains that this shift in legal policy seems worrying to me... I can see more scope for it going wrong than right.
I don't like this one at all. Okay, people who get so pissed that they can't remember their own names are obviously putting themselves in a vulnerable condition through their own choice, but then I'm not one to lecture about the perils of substance abuse. Regardless of the state you're in though, consent is still a positive action - saying 'yes' - the lack of a negative action is not the same thing. And informed consent requires the person giving their consent to be in a position to judge the consequences of their decision...
I dunno, she decided to get that hammered, but even so... I think the guy is at best an idiot and at worst a shit for sleeping with her in that state even if she did come on to him, and obviously the potential very clearly exists for it to have been entirely non-consensual. The problem is that there's not really any way to tell (is there?), if she's going to get herself into that much of a state that she can't remember anything about it.
I suppose I can take this as ratification of my personal policy of not sleeping with anybody who seems to be drunk, unless we have a well-established sexual relationship already. The fact remains that this shift in legal policy seems worrying to me... I can see more scope for it going wrong than right.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2005-11-25 08:26 pm (UTC)It's also probably not desirable to rule on the basis of just how drunk (in the recollection of someone else who was also drunk and has a vested interest) someone was or wasn't. If you were on a jury, would you really want to send someone down for five years because the plaintiff reckons that, on balance, whilst pretty pissed, she reckoned he was quite sober?