Example collocations logo

Consent in sentence

591 examples of Consent in a sentence

Over a decade ago, doctors at the hospital performed a medically unnecessary surgery to alter Pidgeon’s clitoris, vagina, and gonads without Pidgeon’s consent.
More to the point, they shed light on why doctors continue to perform medically unnecessary, high-risk procedures on intersex children who are too young to consent, even though the practice has been controversial for decades within the medical community.
Of course, a president will undoubtedly need to compromise with his legislature, but the general consent that is gained by popular election implies at least some broader agreement behind the platform that he or she campaigned on.
We then came up with the idea of opt-out consent for deceased organ donation.
They did not allow certain forms of coercion to interfere with the donor’s consent.
Moreover, the Israeli National Transplant and Organ Donation Center now openly encourages providers, insurance companies, and the Donor Card Institution, to pay families who consent to donate the organs of their deceased relative.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy, as one of his first initiatives, proposed a ban on “golden parachutes” for departing managers of firms traded on the stock exchange, in order to halt the practice of taking huge severance payments without the consent of shareholders.
But Peres was offered by Rabin’s deputy an opportunity to champion a track two negotiation with the PLO in Oslo, and, with Rabin’s consent, took charge of the talks, bringing them to a successful conclusion in August 1993.
As Sri Lanka’s government pointed out, “That means low-emitting countries like us could not emit more because our space has already been exploited by developed or global heavy polluting countries without our consent.”
If a future Syrian government were to join the International Criminal Court and consent to retroactive jurisdiction, the court would be free to prosecute any mass atrocities it saw fit to investigate.
Only democracy could have engineered such remarkable change with the consent of the governed, and enabled all to feel that they have the same stake in the country’s progress, equal rights under its laws, and equal opportunities for advancement.
According to Article 22 of the Convention, “the premises of [a diplomatic] mission shall be inviolable,” and a “receiving state may not enter them, except with the consent of the head of the mission.”
In other words, a host state that enters a foreign mission without consent (none was given in my time as EU Ambassador in Washington, DC, from 2004 to 2009), or hacks into its computer system, would be acting in blatant violation of the Convention.
Tissue can be removed only with donors’ prior consent.
Thus, prior to giving their consent, tissue donors can negotiate acceptable compensation.
Now, as then, a change of boundaries without the consent of all concerned parties would not only violate international law, but could also lead to violence.
Here, popular sovereignty would buttress the battered concept of national sovereignty, with the consent of the European people forming the basis of the EU’s authority.
No power, not even the United Nations, should be allowed to change them without the consent of the country concerned.
Moreover, organizations seeking to release gene-drive organisms should obtain the “free, prior, and informed consent” of potentially affected communities.
But it remains far from clear that Target Malaria has acquired anything close to the villages’ “free, prior, and informed consent.”
Civil-society groups operating in and around the test-site villages have also not been adequately consulted about Target Malaria’s work.The more interviews I conducted, the clearer it became that local people had not been involved in a genuinely participatory debate on the Target Malaria project, let alone extended their informed consent.
On the contrary, several people I interviewed called for the experimental release of genetically modified mosquitoes to be halted until the risks and effects had been adequately investigated, and civil society across Burkina Faso had been fully informed.Target Malaria’s lack of commitment to consent is reflected in its own rhetoric, which eschews the unequivocal word “consent,” but regularly uses terms like “engagement” and “community acceptance.”
This choice may indicate that the organization’s leaders have already decided to proceed with the release.Reinforcing this conclusion, after the UN convention, Target Malaria attempted to draw a distinction between the requirement of free, prior, and informed consent in the context of medical research on individuals (where it is demanded) and in a public-health context.
According to the organization, “it’s not logistically possible to obtain consent from each and every person affected” by the release of genetically modified mosquitoes.But the reason it is difficult to acquire informed consent from all people affected by gene-drive experiments is the same reason that doing so is absolutely critical.
Securing the consent of only a handful of local residents simply is not good enough.Because Target Malaria’s Burkina Faso experiments are among the first of their kind, they will serve as a powerful precedent for similar experiments worldwide.
With proposals for the release of gene-drive organisms in indigenous territories in New Zealand, Australia, and Hawaii on the agenda in the coming years, there is a need to establish a clear threshold for what informed consent means and how to secure it.
This means that consent would have to be secured significantly beyond the release point.
The more interviews I conducted, the clearer it became that local people had not been involved in a genuinely participatory debate on the Target Malaria project, let alone extended their informed consent.
Target Malaria’s lack of commitment to consent is reflected in its own rhetoric, which eschews the unequivocal word “consent,” but regularly uses terms like “engagement” and “community acceptance.”
Reinforcing this conclusion, after the UN convention, Target Malaria attempted to draw a distinction between the requirement of free, prior, and informed consent in the context of medical research on individuals (where it is demanded) and in a public-health context.
BackNext