Hume's argument, if it challenges the voluntariness of consent based on the badness of the alternative, proves too much, since many paradigm cases of valid consent involve avoiding bad alternatives.
proves too much(Applied to Pascal's Wager to show it would equally justify belief in incompatible theistic hypotheses)
A dialectical objection where an argument is shown to be flawed because the same form of reasoning, applied consistently, would justify conclusions that are clearly false or mutually contradictory.
valid consent(Debate over research ethics and informed consent in clinical trials)
Consent that is sufficient to legitimate enrollment in a trial; on one view, requires autonomous authorization; on another view, requires only that investigators provide the opportunity for autonomous authorization, avoid fraud, and treat candidates fairly.
voluntariness(as used in ethics)
The quality of doing something by your own free choice, without being forced or coerced by others.
But it is not clear why Hume's argument is supposed to work. It sounds like the argument challenges the voluntariness of the consent. But this cannot be a conclusive argument here. After all, many people consent to things in order to avoid the terrible costs of not consenting. People consent to pay their insurance premiums in order not to end up without health care when the time comes that they need it. Promises made on the battlefield to lay down arms on the condition that the opponent will not