Informed consent is vital to the role of ethics and morality issues, but without all the information on any given subject, it is difficult to make a decision based on informed consent. As author Roach notes about shooting cadavers, "Then again, if you're planning to shoot guns at them, it might be good to run that up the flagpole and get the a-okay" (Roach 146) from surviving relatives. This is the sticky part of informed consent issues such as these. Most relatives would not sign consent forms if they knew their loved ones' bodies might be used to prove the validity of weapons, rather than used to enhance military effectiveness. Yet, without the cadavers, testing of some items, such as bulletproof vests, is difficult if not impossible. Revealing information in a case like this is like a time bomb. Too much information could result in a lack of cadavers for viable research needs, while too little information could result in lawsuits and stress in the remaining family.
             The role of withheld information in Roach's article is the implication that loved ones may never know what happens if they donate their relative's body to science, and should they know. It seems most people donate their bodies to help save the lives of others, rather than serve as shooting range dummies. Without knowing this could occur, family members do not have all the information and cannot make an informed decision. If they found out what happened, and were never told, it could cloud the entire medical cadaver industry. Thus, not disclosing this information threatens medical and military research. No one wants to think their loved ones were used for targets, and many people would not consent to this if they knew. As Roach notes, "How do you decide it's okay to cut off someone's grandfather's head and shoot it in the face? (Roach 147). Obviously, most people would baulk if they knew this is what was going to happen to their loved one, a
             ...