Reasonable to Whom? Rethinking Informed Consent Disclosures in Light of the Research Related Concerns of the Autistic Community

Information disclosure during the informed consent process presents a dilemma. If too little information is presented, participants are unable to make an informed decision. Exhaustive disclosure is, however, a practical impossibility. In the United States, this dilemma was historically navigated in the research context by requiring that disclosure include enumerated items: the purpose of the research, potential risks, etc. In 2018, federal guidelines were updated to require that disclosure adhere to the reasonable person standard, whereby participants must be given all information that an "average" person would want to know. Drawing on the Autistic community's unique concerns regarding research, we argue that, because of its emphasis on the informational wants of the "average" person, the reasonable person standard systematically fails to meet the informational needs of (many) people from minoritized populations. We argue for an individualized understanding of the reasonable person standard and provide recommendations for research teams.