Published online 2015 April 1. Review Article Shifting Paradigms in Women’s Health Care: From Informed Consent to Informed Choice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context: This article discusses the paradigm shift in health care and bioethics from the concept of informed consent to informed choice. Evidence Acquisition: Informed consent is linked to the concept of respect for autonomy-one of the four pillars of bioethics. This concept requires health care givers to share information with patients so they can make appropriate health care decisions. However, the concept of informed consent has been critiqued as being paternalistic and not attentive to the complexities of modern health care decisions. Results: As a result of a paradigm shift in health care and ethics, favoring autonomy over other principles-informed consent evolved to the more patient-centered concept of informed choice. Even so, feminist bioethicists critique the mainstream model of informed choice as being inattentive to inherent power dynamics within health care and society which may influence decision making. Drawing on the model of midwifery in Canada, this paper outlines an approach to health care that incorporates feminist definitions of informed choice. Conclusions: This paper reviews the necessary criteria for informed choice to be attentive to the individual needs of women. Using the model of midwifery in Canada as an example, this paper demonstrates how feminist approaches to informed choice should be preferred in modern health care settings.
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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.075 | 0.021 |
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".