Obstetrical Delivery of the HIV-Positive Woman: Legal and Ethical Considerations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Every year, thousands of perinatally HIV-infected children are born, resulting in debate about appropriate HIV treatment and interventions for pregnant women. Recent medical studies endorse the use of the cesarean delivery to reduce vertical (mother to infant) transmission of HIV. In addition to medical questions, this practice raises legal and ethical considerations for the attending physician. In the context of AIDS prevention, the potential exists for reasoned and well-informed decision making to give way to encouragement, and even duress, in cases where a woman refuses recommended surgical delivery. However, in such cases, the role of the physician should remain as that of an informed educator and counselor, enabling the patient to exercise her autonomy and personal choice within her social and cultural context. Target Audience: Obstetricians & Gynecologists, Family Physicians Learning Objectives: After completion of this article, the reader will be able to explain the legal and ethical dimensions of informed consent, to describe how informed consent can be applied to the clinical counseling of HIV-infected pregnant women, and to outline the physician guidelines for decision making when counseling an HIV-infected pregnant patient.
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 | 0.001 | 0.084 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".