Faden and Beauchamp differentiate two definitions of Informed consent. In their entry “The Concept of Informed Consent”, they label these two definitions into different senses. The first sense, labeled Sense₁, distinguishes informed consent as being “active authorization” by the patient. This is to be differentiated from agreeing or submitting to an authoritative figure, in which Faden gives an interesting example; A child submitting to a punishment such as a spanking from an authoritative figure, like a parent, and the child giving an active directive to do so of their own autonomy are distinct. Sense₁ can be defined as a patient of their own autonomy who has substantial understanding of the procedure intentionally authorizing a professional to perform said procedure. Katz views informed consent and shared decision-making between patient and doctor as synonymous, to which Faden Beauchamp do not agree. They view shared decision-making to be manipulative and under the Sense₁ definition, a shared decision does not need to be reached for a patient to exercise autonomous authorization.

Conversely, the second sense, labeled Sense₂, is defined as effective consent, or obtainment of procedures that satisfy rules and requirements of institutional practice. In other words, the informed consent that was valid in sense₁ is only valid in sense₂ if they meet the requirements -often of social or legal design- of that said practice. The example Faden gives is a 19-year-old giving authorized consent to a kidney transplant. This meets the definition of informed consent in Sense₁, however because the law states the legal age of consent to surgery is 21, the decision is not valid under Sense₂. Adequate consent in Sense₁ does not always equal adequate consent in Sense₂ and vice versa. Faden and Beauchamp rest on the idea that the justification behind obtaining informed consent is in deference to autonomy. While Sense₂ is “morally acceptable” even when it differs significantly from Sense₁, it can veer away from the absolute necessity for authoritative autonomy and therefore prove problematic in terms of morality.