Consenting to consent

Both ethicists and lawyers accept that a provider – be it researcher or clinician should provide sufficient information for reasonable person to make an informed decision about whether they wish go ahead with the proposed intervention treatment.1 They are bound do so both because have ethical responsibility preserve individual’s autonomous making, and, in many countries, law obliges them to. In this month’s issue of JME, three articles tackle issues relating consent different contexts. Overarching these analyses is pragmatic question process taking itself might alter outcomes, whether, doing so, can undermine initial therapeutic research goal creating another what prioritise. Psilocybin (a serotonergic psychedelic) entering Phase III trials evaluate its effect on treatment resistant depression cancer related anxiety; earlier shown sustained symptom reduction populations. Smith Sisti examine form enhanced ethically required drugs.2 explore how adequately ‘therapeutic touch’ (eg, holding someone’s hand) future altered state; rare but significant mental health risks including trauma re-exposure; potential personality change given intense experiences which subjects reported. illustrate example regarding spiritual occur psychedelics, suggest ‘agnostic atheist patients may take development newfound sense spirituality belief God …