Abstract

The analytic method, part of the epistemonic method, provides us with a way to cope with perplexed cases, without even referring to the world out there. We are able to predict all possible variations of consent, and go on forming minimum logical quadripoles, 8-poles, 16-poles, etc., before even trying to make any connection to the world. This way, there are two major outcomes: All possible scenarios are predicted, and, because of that, our “logical generator” produces scenarios we couldn’t even think of. Consent is, therefore, neither binary, nor just a continuum from existence to absence, but a cladistic tree stemming from the basic quadripole “existence of consent/not existence of consent/absence of consent/not absence of consent.” The complexity increases rapidly when other terms are included; try: “existence of informed consent” or “existence of unintentional consent.” More levels develop as we examine relevant terms, such as “exposure,” “protection,” or “consumption.” In our case-study, we shall examine how different aspects of consent are expressed regarding the issue of performance enhancement and consider some implications for the notion of expertise within an SEA context. Many different terms may describe the most common situations, namely, “uniformed consent,” “unintentional consent,” “non-intentional consent,” “not absence of consent,” and also, “unintentional exposure,” “intentional non-protection,” and so on. In Greek language, the possible variations are even more. All the aforementioned terms have different ethical consequences. We shall also examine whether doping is an inherent part of expertise attainment.