Skip to content

Data rights are the missing pillar for modernizing consent in medicine

Chimera readability score 60 out of 100, Graduate reading level.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
$32.99 / 30 days
cancel any time
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$259.00 per year
only $21.58 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on SpringerLink
- Instant access to the full article PDF.
USD 39.95
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
References
Washington et al. v. Sutter Health et al. No. 4:2026cv03012 (US District Court for the Northern District of California, 2026).
Saucedo v. Sharp Healthcare. No. 25CU063632C (Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, 2025).
Tierney, A. A. et al. NEJM Catal. Innov. Care Deliv. https://doi.org/10.1056/CAT.25.0040 (2025).
Topaz, M., Peltonen, L. M. & Zhang, Z. npj Digit. Med. 8, 569 (2025).
Mello, M. M., Char, D. & Xu, S. H. JAMA 334, 767–770 (2025).
American Medical Association. Opinion 2.1.1 Informed Consent. AMA Code of Medical Ethics (AMA, 2026).
Kawamleh, S. AI Ethics 3, 901–916 (2023).
Gupta, R. et al. JAMA Netw. Open 6, e231305 (2023).
European Parliament and Council of the European Union. General Data Protection Regulation, Article 5 (Official Journal of the European Union, 2016).
Green, F. M. & Friedman, N. C. New York Law Journal https://go.nature.com/4xIGxbl (2026).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interest
The author declares no competing interests.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Salem, N.S. Data rights are the missing pillar for modernizing consent in medicine. Nat Med (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-026-04506-3
Published:
Version of record:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-026-04506-3

Facts Only

The article cites legal cases: Washington et al. v. Sutter Health et al. (No. 4:2026cv03012) and Saucedo v. Sharp Healthcare (No. 25CU063632C). The content references scholarly works from 2023 and 2025, including publications in NEJM Catal. Innov. Care Deliv., npj Digit. Med., JAMA, AI Ethics, and the GDPR Article 5. The article was published in Nature Medicine (Nat Med) in 2026.

Executive Summary

Access to Nature Portfolio journals is available through subscriptions like Nature+ or individual journal access. A specific article can be purchased directly for $39.95, offering instant PDF access via SpringerLink. Options exist to subscribe monthly for $32.99 or annually for $259.00. The content references several related legal and scientific citations concerning data rights, medical ethics, and AI, including cases involving consent and data protection regulations.

Full Take

The structure of this text signals an intersection between evolving medical/legal frameworks concerning consent and data governance, and emerging ethical concerns surrounding artificial intelligence, particularly regarding data rights. The citation of established legal precedents alongside cutting-edge research suggests an effort to anchor contemporary ethical debates in concrete rights structures. A critical pattern emerges in the juxtaposition of regulatory and scientific literature; the implication is that technological and medical advancement must be explicitly governed by robust data principles, as highlighted by the focus on data rights being a "missing pillar" for modernizing consent. The absence of explicit reasoning regarding the connection between the cited legal outcomes and the necessity of these data rights invites inquiry into how abstract ethical mandates translate into enforceable mechanisms across diverse institutional settings. What are the implicit assumptions made about the harmonization of global regulatory standards when applied to highly sensitive domains like medical consent? How do established legal concepts handle novel data types emerging from AI-driven research, and what systemic costs are borne by individuals when the technological velocity outpaces regulatory adaptation?

Sentinel — Human

Confidence

This text appears to be standard metadata and referencing information from an academic journal article rather than original editorial content.

Signals Detected
low severity: Sentence length and structure are highly varied, typical of academic or journal style.
low severity: The text is a bibliographic preview, exhibiting perfect structural coherence related to citation formatting.
low severity: No argumentative flow is present; the content is strictly metadata and reference listing, matching expected journal front matter.
low severity: The text consists entirely of citations, titles, and publication details, which are verifiable metadata rather than narrative claims.
Human Indicators
The presence of specific legal case numbers, journal names (Nature Medicine, JAMA), and specific DOI links strongly suggests authentic academic source material.