“Doing Ethics” in the Context of Sharing Patients' Personal Health Information
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are at present two inconsistencies with respect to the sharing of personal health information (PHI) among health care professionals caring for a patient whom the information concerns. First, there is an inconsistency between what is in theory the ethics and law governing the confidentiality and privacy of this information--it may only be disclosed with informed consent--and what is the actual practice of health care professionals--they share it without such consent. Second, there is an inconsistency between what ethics and law demand in theory and what all parties want: They all approve of the current practice. Ethics and law can be brought into line with what is needed to act in the patient's best interests and with what people want, without opening up any serious potential for abuse of privacy and confidentiality, by establishing a safeguarded, provision-of-care exception that allows co-caring health care professionals to share patients' PHI. The requirements for a system establishing such safeguards are proposed. The basic governing presumption is respect for the person and for rights to autonomy, self-determination, privacy, and confidentiality. Therefore, disclosure may only be made with the informed consent of the competent person to whom the information pertains, unless a defence of necessity applies. Where there is doubt about someone's competence, there should likewise be doubt about disclosure without that person's informed consent. Where the person is incompetent, such a disclosure can be made to the patient's substitute decision makers, most often the family, if that is necessary for the care of the patient and in the patient's best interests. To the extent possible, consistent with the best interests of the patient, the wishes of incompetent people should be respected.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".