A new paradigm for protecting autonomi and the right to legal capacity. Advancing Substantive Equality for Persons with Disabilities through Law, Policy and Practice. Law Commission of Ontario
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In this paper, the authors assert that the principles set out in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities require a paradigm shift in the law of capacity so that the question is no longer: Does a person have the mental capacity to exercise legal capacity? The question is instead: What types of supports are required for the person to exercise his or her legal capacity?\n\nThe authors advocate for a conception of legal capacity that includes as a minimum the capacity to express one’s intention or will in ways that at least one other person can reasonably describe as meaningful. Based on this minimum threshold, the authors argue for a reformulation of the concept of legal capacity based on three decision-making statuses: (1) legally independent status – where there is reasonable evidence that the person has the ability, by him or herself or with assistance, to understand information that is relevant to making a decision and to appreciate the reasonably foreseeable consequences of a decision; (2) supported decision-making status – where a person needs support from others to express or represent him or herself to third parties, and/or to process information; and (3) facilitated decision-making status – where a person has significant disabilities, is not able to act legally independently, does not have a trusting and committed relationship based on shared life experiences and personal knowledge, and for whom not even a co-decision-maker could discern his or her will or intention without deeper knowledge of the person and his/her ways of communicating. This last status is conceptualized as temporary until an appointed facilitator can learn how to understand the person’s intention or will through his or her unique way of communicating.\n\nThe authors advocate for a positive duty on the state and on third parties to provide supports and accommodations to facilitate decision-making. Specifically, they propose that the right to access supports includes a right to access the types of supports and combinations of supports that most enhances each person’s autonomy based not on disability status but on the particular individual making the decision and the nature of the decision itself. The authors set out detailed mechanisms for safeguards, monitoring, information provision, enforcement and independent advocacy to ensure that the autonomy of persons in various decision-making statuses is maximized and such persons are safe from serious adverse effects, including abuse and neglect. The effect of the paradigm shift that the authors propose is to widen the concept of legal capacity so that more persons with intellectual, cognitive and psychosocial disabilities would be found legally capable and thus their autonomy would be respected.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,011 | 0,012 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,022 | 0,066 |
| Communication savante | 0,018 | 0,014 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,008 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,027 | 0,022 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,010 | 0,002 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».