Foreign Experience of Legal Regulation of the Right of Minors to independently make a Decision on granting Consent for Medical Intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The subject of this work is the study of foreign experience in the normative consolidation of the right of minors to independently make decisions on granting consent to medical intervention. The author notes that, despite the substantial guarantees of prompt consideration of such cases provided for by the Code of Administrative Procedure of the Russian Federation, it is obvious that a delay in the implementation of medical intervention may entail serious consequences. In view of the above, the foreign experience of securing out-of-court procedures for obtaining such consent is of significant interest. The article considers examples of regulatory regulation used in certain European (the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Serbia) and North American (Canada, the United States of America) states.The article considers examples of regulatory regulation used in certain European (the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Serbia) and North American (Canada, the United States of America) states. During the research, the author used various methods of scientific cognition, both general scientific: analysis, synthesis, logical and structural-functional, and private scientific: formal legal, legal modeling method and comparative legal. The novelty of the research lies in the fact that the author for the first time in Russian legal science conducted a comparative analysis of the normative consolidation of the right of minors to independently make decisions on granting consent to medical intervention. The author comes to the conclusion that the issue of the need to expand the possibilities of minors to give appropriate consent, in relation to the Russian Federation, requires separate study and in the process of this work, foreign experience may well be taken into account.
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 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".