Risk and Liability

Free and Informed Consent

• Three conditions for giving free and informed consent to the risks imposed by technology.

1	A person must not be coerced.
2	A person must have the relevant information.
3	A person must be rational and competent enough to evaluate the information

Guidelines for engineers in risk communication

1	Engineer, in communication risk to the public, should be aware that the public’s approach to risk is not the same as that of the risk expert.
2	Engineers should be wary of saying, “There is no such thing as zero risk.” the public often uses “zero risk” to indicate not that something involves no probability of harm but that it is a familiar risk that requires no further deliberation.
3	Engineers should be aware that the public does not always trust experts and believe that experts have sometimes been wrong in the past. They should also be aware that laypeople may rely on their own values in deciding whether or not to base action on an expert’s prediction of probable outcomes.
4	Engineers should be aware that government regulators have a special obligation to protect the public and that this obligation may require them to take into account considerations other than a strict cost-benefit approach.
5	Professional engineering organization have a special obligation to present information regarding technological risk.

Some Issues that arise in applying principle

• We must define what we mean by “protecting” people from harm.

• Many disputes can arise as to what constitutes a harm.

• The determination of what constitutes a great and irreplaceable benefit must be made in the context of particular situations.

• We have already pointed out the problems that arise in determining informed consent and the limitations in obtaining informed consent in many situations.

• The criterion of unjust distribution of harm is also difficult to apply. Some harms associated with risk are probably unjustly distributed.

• An acceptable risk at a given point in time may not be an acceptable risk at another point in time.

1. Ethical values are commonly considered to be too subjective, namely, different from the point of view. Why are there any difference about risk between the risk expert and the public? Is there a possibility that these diverse values can be in harmony?

2. Many people tend to believe that the sacrifice of the weaker can be justified when it contributed to the greatest happiness of the greatest number. Do you believe that this assumption can be justified? What reason can it be provided in order to protect the right of individuals?

3. The public considers that “free and informed consent” is extremely important to accepting risk. Why does the public care for autonomy rather than cost and harms?

Discussion Topics