When placed between disclosure and capacity—its loud and unruly siblings—voluntariness can be seen as the neglected middle-child of informed consent. By my count of articles invoking consent on PubMed, for every one that mentions voluntariness, roughly three mention capacity. This seems odd; after all, “voluntary” is the second word (after “the”) in the oldest formal statement on research ethics, the Nuremberg Code. Into this breach step Paul Appelbaum, Charles Lidz, and Robert Klitzman to lay out a conceptual model of voluntariness, with the ambitious goal of developing instruments for assessing its constraint.
When placed between disclosure and capacity—its loud and unruly siblings—voluntariness can be seen as the neglected middle-child of informed consent. By my count of articles invoking consent on PubMed, for every one that mentions voluntariness, roughly three mention capacity. This seems odd; after all, “voluntary” is the second word (after “the”) in the oldest formal statement on research ethics, the Nuremberg Code. Into this breach step Paul Appelbaum, Charles Lidz, and Robert Klitzman to lay out a conceptual model of voluntariness, with the ambitious goal of developing instruments for assessing its constraint.
Jonathan Kimmelman, "Battling a Thousand Points of Might," Hastings Center Report 39, no 1 (2009): 3.