The paper examines the attainment and adequacy of informed consent in an ethnographic–discursive study on gynecological visits involving doctors, patients, and nurses. Starting from a theoretical discussion on informed consent and the principles upon which it relies, the paper highlights the changes and the adjustments that these principle undergo in practice, from the planning of the research till later stages of the researcher's fieldwork and data recording. Analyses first focus on the informed consent as a written artifact and show how the description of the study indexes the prospective participants' identity, as well as, it works in favor of the researcher's (or, other institutional representatives such as the managers of the Hospital) accountability. Then, the authors focus on instances of audio and video recorded doctor–patient–nurse interactions in which information is reformulated by the doctors, in such a way as to anticipate and/or respond to the nurses' and patients' concerns with regards the project (such as, the risk of exposure to the public). The analysis of these episodes carry ethical implications, in that they alert that patients, nurses, and doctors may be not equally knowledgeable about the project and that they can be conceded unequal opportunities to have their interpretations and identity performances acknowledged and inscribed on the tape.