PreprintCited by 9Ethics and bioethics in healthcareDigitalization, Law, and RegulationMedical and Health Sciences Research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; its reference list is not available.

The Consent Myth: Improving Choice for Patients of the Future

Open access
Tschider, Charlotte·2018·SSRN Electronic Journal

Abstract

Consent has enjoyed a prominent position in the American privacy system since at least 1970, though historically, consent emerged from traditional notions of tort and contract. Largely because consent has an almost deferential power as a proxy for consumer choice, organizations increasingly use consent as a de facto standard for demonstrating privacy commitments. The Department of Health and Human Services and the Federal Trade Commission have integrated the concept of consent into health care, research, and general commercial activities. Despite consent’s prominence in U.S. law, this article seeks to understand, more fully, consent’s origins and development, then applies a philosophical-legal lens to clearly identify problems with consent in its current use. Jürgen Habermas’ theory of communicative action as it applies to private and public spheres and Helen Nissenbaum’s model for contextual inquiry provide useful lenses for understanding the impact of consent on human autonomy. This article suggests five resulting problems for human autonomy, the “consent myth,” and four principles for addressing these problems in contemporary health technologies, such as Internet of Health Things (IoHT) and artificial intelligence (AI) applications.

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 · 10.2139/ssrn.3171801

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

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

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 2 · Cited by 9

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. 2019, ACCENTURE 2017 INTERNET OF HEALTH THINGS SURVEY, 10.1109/jiot.2017.2664072 · DOI
  2. Avantika Monnappa, 2017, How Big Data Is Powering the Internet of Things (IoT) Revolution, SIMPLILEARN
  3. David Kaplan, 2017, The 'Internet of Health Things' To Be Worth $163 Billion By, GEOMARKETING
  4. Tom Krazit, 2016, The Internet of Things Will Make Big Data Look Small, FORTUNE
  5. Tamara Dull, 2019, Big Data and the Internet of Things: Two Sides of the Same Coin?, SAS
  6. Bernard Marr, 2017, Why AI Would Be Nothing without Big Data
  7. 2018, The Power of AI to Transform Clinical Trials, 10.1016/j.conctc.2018.09.007 · DOI

Metadata

Authors
Tschider, C.
Affiliations
Loyola University Chicago (US)
Corresponding author
Tschider, Charlotte
Venue
SSRN Electronic Journal
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018
Volume
96
Issue
6
Pages
1505-1536
ISSN
1556-5068 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3121897233
Cited by
9
References
2
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 2
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
  • Open Scholarship Institutional Repository (Washington University in St. Louis) (submittedVersion)
  • Washington University law review
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
  • Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
  • Social Sciences › Law › Medical and Health Sciences Research
Keywords
informed consent, patient choice, privacy, health technology, Internet of Medical Things, artificial intelligence in healthcare, health data privacy, consumer choice, privacy law, Federal Trade Commission, Department of Health and Human Services

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: The Consent Myth: Improving Choice for Patients of the Future. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2139/ssrn.3171801
The paper
Tschider, C. (2018). The Consent Myth: Improving Choice for Patients of the Future. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3171801