Ethical and legal approaches to ‘the fetal patient’
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The concept of fetuses being 'patients' can serve a benign protective, cautionary purpose, alerting healthcare providers and pregnant women to the implications that medical treatment can have for fetuses. The concept allows women to provide the children they intend to deliver with the care they consider appropriate. A negative effect occurs, however, if healthcare providers decide to treat pregnant women according to providers' own views of the best interests of fetuses, and compromise patients' care and self-determination without their informed consent. Some activists advocate rights of fetuses for the purpose of limiting pregnant women's self-determination. Recognition that fetuses have legitimate interests, rather than rights, is common, and opens a way to balancing various competing interests without compromising patients' rights to decide on their medical care. Courts of law generally favor this approach, and tend to allow few limits on women's choice of indicated medical care while pregnant.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.038 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.098 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.024 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".