Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 225

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Toward a model of the legal doctrine of informed consent

·1977·American Journal of Psychiatry

Abstract

The authors draw together the disparate scholarly and judicial commentaries on consent to medical treatment to develop a model of the components in the decision-making process regarding consent to or refusal of psychiatric treatment. The components consist of the precondition of voluntariness, the provision of information, the patient's competency and understanding, and, finally, consent or refusal. They offer two models of valid consent: the objective model, which focuses on the congruence or lack of it between the patient and a "reasonable" person, and the subjective model, which focuses entirely on the patient's actual understanding.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1176/ajp.134.3.285

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 225

Metadata

Venue
American Journal of Psychiatry
Published
1977-03-01
Volume
134
Issue
3
Pages
285-289
ISSN
  • 0002-953X (ISSN-L)
  • 1535-7228
OpenAlex
W20165781
Cited by
225
References
0
FWCI
4.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Toward a model of the legal doctrine of informed consent. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1176/ajp.134.3.285
The paper
Toward a model of the legal doctrine of informed consent. (1977). American Journal of Psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.134.3.285

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.