A study on legal and ethical basis for medical apology in Malaysia / Shahrir Ridha Shaharuddin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When things go wrong during medical procedure, patients expect an explanation from medical practitioner of what happened. Patients have their rights to full disclosure following a medical error which it is also therapeutic in relieving their anxiety. A disclosure followed by an apology would most probably bring positive outcome towards the disclosure process. An apology also help to preserve the relationship which has been deteriorate between the medical practitioner and patient. However, in certain circumstances an apology made could be misinterpreted by the patient when it is made at a wrong time without properly well prepared. As a result, the apology made was used against medical practitioner as evidence of admission of fault in court. Thus, most of medical practitioners fear to make an apology due to possible medical litigation. This has put medical practitioner in dilemma whether or not to make apology when things go wrong. In relation towards this issue, several jurisdictions like Canada, United States and Australia have enacted legislation on apology. The purpose of this apology laws is to provide protection towards those people who wish to convey the expression of sympathy through apology. In contrast towards Malaysia legal system, there was no specific legislation to protect medical practitioner in making apology. Thus it raises a question whether a specific legislation is required like other jurisdiction in order to provide protection toward apology from being used as evidence in legal proceedings. This paper will discuss to what extend does apology is an admissible evidence in determining liability and the best way to implement medical apology according to Malaysia context.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".