In this case commentary, we analyze ethical concerns that were raised in response to an interview with a woman with bipolar disorder who was under involuntary commitment. We focus on competence and voluntariness as two prerequisites for valid informed consent. We recommend that judgments of competence be based on whether prospective research participants sufficiently possess certain decision-making abilities. Based on this functional approach, we argue that manic symptoms need not undermine competence and that, even if we were to assume that the research participant became incompetent during the interview, this would not invalidate her consent retroactively. It would, however, compromise her ability to revoke her consent. We furthermore show that obtaining additional proxy consent for research participation may compromise the autonomy of service users who are competent to consent. Then we turn to the issue of voluntariness. Arguing that neither the great strength nor the external etiology of a desire compromises voluntariness, we propose that the voluntariness of a decision instead depends on whether the decision-maker endorses it on reflection. The researchers disclosed that prospective research participants’ decision about study participation would have no influence on the duration of the commitment or the quality of care. We contend that because of this neither coercion nor undue influence was exerted in the informed consent process. Nevertheless, there is an increased likelihood of perceived coercion and undue influence under conditions of involuntary commitment, and we close by suggesting some safeguards to prevent this.
