↓ Skip to main content

Chronicles of communication and power: informed consent to sterilisation in the Namibian Supreme Court’s LM judgment of 2015

Overview of attention for article published in Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
13 Mendeley
Title
Chronicles of communication and power: informed consent to sterilisation in the Namibian Supreme Court’s LM judgment of 2015
Published in
Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, April 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11017-017-9405-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nyasha Chingore-Munazvo, Katherine Furman, Annabel Raw, Mariette Slabbert

Abstract

The 2015 judgment of the Namibia Supreme Court in Government of the Republic of Namibia v LM and Others set an important precedent on informed consent in a case involving the coercive sterilisation of HIV-positive women. This article analyses the reasoning and factual narratives of the judgment by applying Neil Manson and Onora O'Neill's approach to informed consent as a communicative process. This is done in an effort to understand the practical import of the judgment in the particular context of resource constrained public healthcare facilities through which many women in southern Africa access reproductive healthcare. While the judgment affirms certain established tenets in informed consent to surgical procedures, aspects of the reasoning in context demand more particularised applications of what it means for a patient to have capacity and to be informed, and to appropriately accommodate the disruptive role of power dynamics in the communicative process.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 13 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 31%
Researcher 3 23%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 15%
Student > Bachelor 1 8%
Other 1 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 46%
Social Sciences 2 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 15%
Unspecified 1 8%
Arts and Humanities 1 8%
Other 1 8%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 April 2017.
All research outputs
#3,516,128
of 12,343,216 outputs
Outputs from Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics
#64
of 203 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,973
of 264,571 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics
#2
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,343,216 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 203 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 264,571 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.