arbiter
JournalsAccount

Critically Rethinking the Right Not to Know: Legal Ambiguity and Theoretical Fragility

Abbas Mirshekari & Jamshid Zargari

Bond Law Review2025https://doi.org/10.53300/001c.142358article
ABDC B
Weight
0.50

Abstract

In an era marked by unprecedented access to information and rapid advancements in health care technologies, the Right Not to Know (RNTK) has emerged as a key yet contentious concept within legal discourses. RNTK grants individuals the capacity to refuse knowledge about their health care or genetic profile, thereby strengthening personal autonomy and self-determination. This right is increasingly incorporated into international legal frameworks and human rights principles as a protection against paternalistic tendencies in health care and the overwhelming flood of contemporary data. Despite this development, its legal enforcement remains inconsistent, situated in a regulatory grey zone characterised by uncertainty and diverse interpretations. Theoretically, RNTK’s validity is both supported and challenged. The current study employs a thorough examination of these aspects to evaluate whether RNTK represents an established right in the field of human rights or a contentious right in international and domestic law, especially Australia. This analysis aims to clarify its broader implications for societies.

Open via your library →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.53300/001c.142358

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{abbas2025,
  title        = {{Critically Rethinking the Right Not to Know: Legal Ambiguity and Theoretical Fragility}},
  author       = {Abbas Mirshekari & Jamshid Zargari},
  journal      = {Bond Law Review},
  year         = {2025},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.53300/001c.142358},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Critically Rethinking the Right Not to Know: Legal Ambiguity and Theoretical Fragility

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.50

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20
M · momentum0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.