darkcobra2005 wrote on Oct 24
th, 2005 at 7:58am:
The informed consent form is the form that has a release and hold harmless statement in it, and as I stated, many attorneys have reviewed it and informed me it is worthless when it comes to being taken to court. We are not immune from suit, many have been filed against examiners and some have been awarded damages. If State Law mandates the form and even words it for you as a matter of law, it would be illegal not to get it signed. I have had examinees refuse to sign the form and that ends the examination before it starts.
If the form is worthless, then why make examinees sign it? While state laws may require a consent statement be signed before a polygraph examination is administered, they most certaintly
don't require polygraphers to demand a waiver of
liability from examinees.
Why do most polygraphers demand such waivers of liability? It is clearly
not a matter of law. It is a matter of choice. Please don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.
Again I ask:
1) Will you go on the record as releasing all examinees you have polygraphed from any liability waivers they may have signed?
2) What do you have to say to your colleagues in the polygraph community who routinely demand that examinees sign such liability waivers?
3) How can such a requirement be ethically justified?
4) Why do your colleagues shirk responsibility for their actions (by demanding such waivers)?
darkcobra2005 wrote on Oct 24
th, 2005 at 8:01am:
One point I missed, all doctors have you sign a release also when they treat you for any illness, especially hospitals that have many releases that must be signed, are doctors also unethical?
While I think any comparison of polygraphy to medicine is entirely inappropriate, I would be skeptical of any doctor who required me to sign a liability waiver before administering a non-invasive, non-experimental diagnostic test. I've never been asked to sign a liability waiver for a urine test. Why should I (or anyone) have to sign one for a polygraph "test?"