Informed Consent, Beyond the Courtroom
The ChronicleLive report on the conviction of Ciara Watkin has reignited debate about consent, honesty, and accountability. The jury accepted that key information was withheld, which meant valid consent was not possible.
What Informed Consent Means
Consent is not just a yes, it is a yes based on accurate, material information. If someone hides or distorts facts that would reasonably change your decision, any agreement that follows is not informed consent.
Where This Principle Also Applies
- Medical decisions – risks, benefits, and alternatives must be explained so patients can choose freely.
- Data rights – under UK GDPR, people must be told what data is collected, how it is used, and why. Hidden processing or silent deletion removes meaningful choice.
- Equality and disability adjustments – people can only consent to engage if they know what adjustments will be made, and how. Withholding this blocks autonomy.
- Employment support and recruitment – applicants should be told if documents will be edited, standardised, or withheld. Otherwise consent is based on a false picture.
Systemic vs Individual Deception
The Watkin case is an individual example. Systems can fail in similar ways when organisations act without clear disclosure. Disputes with The Recruitment Junction about standardised CV use, and with Greggs about account deletion and SAR handling, raise the same core issue, people cannot give real consent if they are not given full and accurate information about what will happen.
Informed consent is a right, not a courtesy. Remove the information and you remove the consent.
Bottom Line
Whether in relationships, healthcare, data use, or everyday services, the rule is the same, tell the truth, give people the facts, and let them decide. Anything less replaces consent with compliance.
The Reasonable Adjustment – TheReasonableAdjustment.co.uk
Be First to Comment