In search of a “reasonable person standard” for gynecologic cytologists

1994 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 216-218 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. Marshall Austin
Keyword(s):  
Reasonable Person ◽  
Reasonable Person Standard

Torts and Other Wrongs

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Gardner
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Distributive Justice ◽  
Strict Liability ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Moral Significance ◽  
Reasonable Person ◽  
Reasonable Person Standard ◽  
The Law

Torts and Other Wrongs is a collection of eleven of the author’s essays on the theory of the law of torts and its place in the law more generally. Two new essays accompany nine previously published pieces, a number of which are already established classics of theoretical writing on private law. Together they range across the distinction between torts and other wrongs, the moral significance of outcomes, the nature and role of corrective and distributive justice, the justification of strict liability, the nature of the reasonable person standard, and the role of public policy in private law adjudication. Though focused on the law of torts, the wide-ranging analysis in each chapter will speak to theorists of private law more generally.

Sexual Harassment: The “Reasonable Person” vs “Reasonable Woman” Standards have not been Resolved

1996 ◽  
Vol 78 (1) ◽  
pp. 329-330 ◽  
Author(s):  
William Douglas Woody ◽  
Wayne Viney ◽  
Paul A. Bell ◽  
Nora L. Bensko
Keyword(s):  
Sexual Harassment ◽  
The Other ◽  
Hostile Environment ◽  
Reasonable Person ◽  
Reasonable Person Standard ◽  
Reasonable Woman Standard

Previous research suggests that women are more likely than men to perceive a hostile environment of sexual harassment in job-related scenarios. Such findings raise questions about whether a “reasonable woman” standard might be preferable to a “reasonable person” standard for adjudication of some sexual harassment cases. There are sound arguments for both positions, and there is no basis at the present time for unequivocal and categorical support for one position over the other.

scholarly journals The common rule's ‘reasonable person’ standard for informed consent

Bioethics ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 274-277 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jake Greenblum ◽  
Ryan Hubbard
Keyword(s):  
Informed Consent ◽  
Reasonable Person ◽  
Reasonable Person Standard ◽  
The Common

The Reasonable Person Standard for Research Disclosure: A Reasonable Addition to the Common Rule

2019 ◽  
Vol 47 (2) ◽  
pp. 194-202 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca Dresser
Keyword(s):  
Personal Experience ◽  
National Commission ◽  
Reasonable Person ◽  
Common Rule ◽  
Reasonable Person Standard ◽  
Research Oversight ◽  
The Common ◽  
Oversight System ◽  
Study Participants ◽  
Injured Patients

The revised Common Rule adopts the reasonable person standard to guide research disclosure. Some members of the research community contend that the standard is confusing and ill-suited to the research oversight system. Yet the revised rule is not as radical as it might seem. During the 1970s, judges started using the standard to evaluate negligence claims brought by injured patients who said doctors had failed to obtain informed consent to the harmful procedures. In its influential Belmont Report, the National Commission recommended application of a “reasonable volunteer standard” to guide IRBs evaluating research disclosures. Evidence also suggests that IRBs often invoke the reasonable person standard in deliberations about consent forms. But past application of the standard has been informal and uneven. Robust application of the reasonable person standard will require researchers and IRBs to learn more about what ordinary people want and need to know about the studies they are invited to join. Input from people with personal experience as study participants could be particularly useful to this effort.

Genetic Knowledge and Third-Party Interests

1999 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 386-392 ◽  
Author(s):  
ELISABETH BOETZKES
Keyword(s):  
Genetic Information ◽  
Family Members ◽  
Reproductive Technologies ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Insurance Companies ◽  
Royal Commission ◽  
Dna Testing ◽  
Reasonable Person ◽  
Reasonable Person Standard ◽  
Professional Guidelines

Recent discussions of genetic information have highlighted the need for ethical disclosure guidelines. For instance, the (Canadian) Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies points out the range of third-party interests in genetic information and the lack of clear ethical and professional guidelines governing its dissemination. Among the more worrying interests are those of insurance companies and prospective employers. However, also worrisome is the problem of negotiating the first-party interest in privacy (from which the professional obligation of confidentiality arises) and strong third-party claims from family members. The survey by Knoppers and Laberge of consent forms currently used in DNA testing in Canada shows that fewer than half mention access by family members, and only three out of 20 alert subjects to the possibility of finding nonpaternity. Both the Royal Commission and the Knoppers research group recommend integrated, national consent standards, with the Knoppers group explicitly approving a “reasonable person” standard of disclosure. While endorsing the call for integrated consent guidelines, in this paper I intend to raise some doubts about the adequacy of the reasonable person standard in light of gender differences in reproductive burden and risk perception.

scholarly journals BECAUSE OF SEX and A LAW OF HER OWN

2017 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 149-156
Author(s):  
Jocelynne Annette Scutt
Keyword(s):  
Historical Perspective ◽  
Women's Work ◽  
Reasonable Person ◽  
Contemporary World ◽  
Women’S Work ◽  
Reasonable Person Standard ◽  
The Law ◽  
Reasonable Woman Standard

Though published more than ten years apart, it is timely to review these volumes together. Both books adopt an historical perspective on women under men’s laws, with a strong message for the contemporary world. Because of Sex traces developments constituting, and bringing about, advances in how the law addresses women’s work and roles, and consequent change in society. A Law of Her Own proposes how the law should adopt a revised approach, substituting the ‘reasonable woman’ standard for the existing - generally ubiquitous – ‘reasonable man’ or ‘reasonable person’ standard – which Because of Sex indicates has at least to some degree, in some instances, occurred.

Consent and the Right to Refuse Treatment

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert M. Veatch ◽  
Amy Haddad ◽  
E. J. Last
Keyword(s):  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Care Practice ◽  
Health Care Practice ◽  
Reasonable Person ◽  
Medical Treatments ◽  
Reasonable Person Standard ◽  
Right To Refuse Treatment ◽  
Types Of Information ◽  
The Right ◽  
Subjective Standard

This chapter is concerned with one of the major ethical issues in contemporary health care practice: informed or valid consent. The chapter defines the elements of informed consent—that is, the types of information that need to be transmitted for consent to be adequately informed. The second section looks at cases involving questions of the standards of consent, referring to the question of what standard of reference should be used in determining whether a sufficient amount of a particular type of information has been transmitted: the professional standard, the reasonable person standard, or the subjective standard. The third section examines questions of whether the information transmitted is comprehended and whether the consent is adequately voluntary. Finally, the fourth section addresses whether incompetent patients can be expected to consent and what role parents, guardians, and other surrogates can play in giving approval for medical treatments for those who are legally incompetent to do so themselves.

The Reasonable Person Standard: Psychological and Legal Perspectives

2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark D. Alicke ◽  
Stephanie H. Weigel
Keyword(s):  
Science Volume ◽  
The Self ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Annual Review ◽  
Publication Date ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Reasonable Person ◽  
Self Defense ◽  
Objective Standard ◽  
Reasonable Person Standard

In criminal cases of self-defense and provocation, and civil cases of negligence, culpability is often decided with reference to how a reasonably prudent person (RPP) would have behaved in similar circumstances. The RPP is said to be an objective standard in that it eschews consideration of a defendant's unique background or characteristics. We discuss theory and evidence suggesting that in morally relevant judgments, including those involving negligence, self-defense, and provocation, the tendency to rely on the self—on one's own values and predilections—dominates considerations of the RPP. We consider subjective standards that have been proposed as alternatives to the RPP and review research on this topic. We conclude by considering avenues for future research, particularly addressing conditions in which self-standards of reasonableness are most likely to prevail. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Law and Social Science, Volume 17 is October 2021. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.

Epistemic Responsibility in Sexual Coercion and Self-Defense Law

2021 ◽  
pp. 305-320
Author(s):  
Hallie Liberto
Keyword(s):  
Sexual Coercion ◽  
Sexual Consent ◽  
Epistemic Responsibility ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Reasonable Person ◽  
Reasonable Expectation ◽  
Self Defense ◽  
Reasonable Person Standard ◽  
Alternative Suggestion ◽  
Better Than

Those accused of sexual coercion and unjustified killing can defend themselves in American courts by arguing that a reasonable person in their situation could have held an exonerating belief—respectively: a belief in another person’s sexual consent, or another person’s murderous intentions. In this chapter, Liberto argues that this reasonable belief standard is problematic. Liberto presents an alternative suggestion by Donald Hubin and Karen Healey with regard to cases of sexual coercion that she labels the “reasonable expectation from state” (REfS) standard. Liberto argues that adopting a REfS standard for adjudicating both self-defense and sexual coercion cases is better than the “reasonable person” standard. However, contra Hubin and Healey, Liberto argues that expectations from the state towards victims of these criminal cases—expectations that ascribe epistemic responsibility to the victims—are misdirected.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document