There are pelvic exenteration videos online, as well as open heart surgeries online. While the faces of the patients aren't shown in the ones I saw, those surgeries literally involve deep views of the insides and private parts of the patient (intestines, buttocks (front, back, and middle bum-bums, as Tiffany might say)) or with the chest cavity fully open. Those patients gave written consent forms PRIOR to surgery for those videos to be filmed and shown online.
However, as per the reasoning of 'oldandgrey', unless the patient could consent right before being filmed (which they can't because they are under anaesthetics), then they shouldn't be filmed?! : If a man has sex with a woman while she is asleep it is rape as you can’t consent when you’re asleep. It doesn’t matter how many times in the past you have consented to having sex with him. Legally you can’t consent at that time. (In the UK at least.)
What about a patient who signed all paperwork for a surgery, is then sedated, but under sedation shows resistance to the procedure? The procedure would stop, correct?
What if a patient who signed all paperwork for surgery, is sedated, cannot speak, but mentally now wants to back out of surgery but can't tell that to the staff? Surgery proceeds regardless.
When people of sound mind and body sign documents giving future consent for 'filming under sedation' to occur, or other types of filming, that document is obviously still valid when that person is under anaesthetic, which is the point, really.
What about patients who have a 'living will' drawn up that specifically states 'don't resuscitate' (or whatever the medical terminology is) and that patient has a fatal heart attack? Should his 'living will' be in effect and no resuscitation occur, or, should he be resuscitated regardless of what he signed? Legally, if he is not resuscitated, the doctor is not in legal trouble.
There are many instances where people give written consent for various things precisely because they wouldn't be able to do so physically or mentally later on.
Using the analogy of 'having sex' is incorrect in the cases I have just mentioned, which includes filming. (pelvic exenteration videos, open heart surgeries, mastectomies, etc etc...all consent given PRIOR to filming and IMPOSSIBLE to give just a minute before the surgery.) which opens up another point:
TIME. Why would giving prior consent days before a procedure, or a filming, for example, when one is of sound mind and body, be INVALID ONE MINUTE before that procedure?? Why would consent be required TWICE if the person already gave consent to be filmed-under-duress or filmed-under-sugergy??
So, using the 'sex consent' analogy, would ALL consent to ANYTHING and EVERYTHING health-related, (filming, surgeries, why not even 'living wills') need to be given 'ONE MINUTE' or 'ONE SECOND" before it is done? It would be IMPOSSIBLE in the context of surgery, or surgery-filming, or other types of filming where one is sedated as well. In that case, even someone's will would be invalidated because he/she didn't sign it 'one minute' before passing away, but maybe wrote it YEARS earlier, when the person was of sound mind and body, and dully signed before a lawyer.
If Jenny gave her clear consent, verbally, to Kyle to film her even sedated and asleep, then Kyle is permitted to film her. No one knows what occurs behind the scenes in their household or what was said. However, it is my opinion that Kyle is an upright and loyal individual who would always follow Jenny's wishes.
---
With reference to my very previous post, one reason the 'consent to sex' would be implicitly required in all cases is because this is an act where two people should be of sound mind and body to proceed with the act, and it is an act in which both should be participating equally. Because, theoretically, both should be of sound mind and body even one minute before the act, then if one party or the other changes his/her mind, the act should not proceed. The act also should not proceed if one is not 'of sound mind and body' because the other could not participate equally and there could be an element of 'taking advantage' of the other.
When someone has surgery, or consents to be filmed for that surgery or consents to be filmed in all cases while under sedation, the 'activity' is not an equal one for both. There is a videographer (the filmer) and the 'filmee'. WHEN the filmee gives consent (for films of a certain nature) the filmee needs to be of sound mind and body. Contrary to having sex, the consent to being filmed does NOT need to occur 'right before' the filming is taking place because the filming that is consented to could be one where the filmee is sedated or even undergoing surgery. The filmee, of sound mind and body, could have written documents drawn up that will legally be binding, for the filmee to be filmed while sedated, while undergoing surgery, etc etc.
What about the 'adult film' industry...What if, of sound mind and body, actors consent...They 'film', and the film is published. Then, later on, one of the actors (of sound mind and body) changes his/her mind and doesn't want the film to be published anymore? Too late! Contract was already signed. Film does not have to be retracted.
What about private couples who are into 'kinky' behaviour? What if a wife tells her husband that she wants to experience 'the act' while drunk, and even signs a written consent to her husband that this one time, no matter what, she wants to be drunk and experience 'the act'. The husband then proceeds, perhaps several hours later, while the drunk wife 'doth not protest', and voilà!
Bottom line: Be careful what you sign, whether it is medical or other. If in doubt, seek legal advice. When the other party (whoever that may be) has a written document with a signature, it is difficult to prove verbal 'protest' right before whatever act or film in case the person changes his/her mind 'one minute' before.
