Requirements of Consent and Innocence and its Impact on Medical Liability Falling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Aim : The theory of consent and innocence are two major approaches in medical law that, studying them as one of the essential conditions of medical liability, has special significance. This study aimed to analyze the discussion of consent and innocence and its impact on medical liability falling. Materials and Methods : In the present study, keywords of consent, innocence, doctor, and liability in databases PubMed, Magiran, SID, ISC and Google Scholar were searched and relevant literatures were searched and analyzed. Ethical Considerations : Principles of ethics and integrity in the search, citation and literature analysis were taken into consideration. Findings : In this study, after explaining the concept of patient consent and satisfactory and capacity conditions in its declaration and also the concept of innocence and its terms, it is emphasized that every wise and mature person has the right to decide about the treatment or medical method recommended for him. Conclusion : Although the legislator explicitly pointed to obtain consent from the patient or his legal representatives in surgeries and medical operations and the existence of such consent in all surgical and medical operations in known as a requirement except in cases of urgent, but due to the fact that in our legal system to comply with Jurisprudence, the obligation to result in surgeries and medical operations indicates the nature of the commitment of doctors and theoretical basis of medical liability, obtaining patient consent, legitimation of medical procedures and respecting the legitimacy of scientific and technical aspects of the state system are not the complete reasons of the collapse of medical liability and compensation the physician is responsible for compensation of the damages applied to the patient, unless before starting treatment acquittal is received from the patient or his representatives. Citation: Abbasi M. Requirements of Consent and Innocence and its Impact on Medical Liability Falling. Bioeth Health Law J . 2017; 1(1):49-55.
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 | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".