Highlights an edge case of informed consent (medical consent).
Basically, it's impossible to "internally give" consent when done under any sort of threat.
In other words, she may "express" consent, but not "internally give consent."
What does that mean? Probably, she'll get strongly supervised treatment and nothing untoward happens. But then what happens if she suffers a serious side effect of the treatment?
In this case I'm 100% okay taking the money either way. The threat is immaterial to my internal consent.
I edited my post to clarify a bit more that informed consent is a specific term in medical ethics, and probably doesn't mean what you think it means. Thanks!
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK430827/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informed_consent