Thierry Vansweevelt and Nicola Glover-Thomas (eds), <i>Informed Consent and Health: A Global Analysis</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The English law of ‘informed consent’, which regulates what information doctors should provide to patients, has been influenced by, and influenced, other jurisdictions. In Sidaway v Bethlem Royal Hospital, Lord Scarman (in the minority) referred to the ‘transatlantic doctrine of informed consent’1 and endorsed the prudent patient test as the determinant of information disclosure. The majority of the House of Lords, however, rejected the patient-friendly approach prevalent in the USA and Canada2 and, instead, adopted the Bolam standard of disclosure, whereby doctors would escape liability provided they complied with peer opinion regarding what information should be disclosed to patients.3 The High Court of Australia chose a different path in both F v R and Rogers v Whitaker4 and determined the issue from the position of the patient. The English position after Sidaway was influenced by the Australian developments and Nicola Glover-Thomas, in this collection, suggests that the English law on information disclosure had been ‘subject to some pressure since the 1990s’ (p 80).5 However, it was not until 2015 that English law clearly departed from the decision in Sidaway, when the UK Supreme Court in the Scottish case of Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board6 held that material risks must be disclosed to patients, with such risks to be determined from the perspective of the reasonable or particular patient.7 Other jurisdictions, such as Singapore, have since followed suit.8
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 | 0.009 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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".