Supports and safeguards for the exercise of legal capacity and autonomy of people with mental, intellectual and psychosocial disabilities: the Michael Bach and Lana Kerzner model
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
With the CRPD, the States Parties committed themselves to create tools to implement a support model for the exercise of legal capacity (art. 12). However, from various manifestations of the UN, it is perceived a generalized difficulty in doing so. Therefore, the goal of this paper is to analyze the support model proposed by the Canadians Michael Bach and Lana Kerzner, identifying its main points of convergence with the CRPD and which aspects can contribute to the Brazilian legal system. The authors start from the premise that, in the paradigm inaugurated by the CRPD, the recognition of legal capacity cannot be dependent on the existence of cognitive abilities or mental capacity, but rather on the availability and guarantee for all of adequate supports for the exercise of rights. Seeking to more fairly allocate supports and reasonable accommodations, they develop three decision-making statuses: legally independent; supported; and facilitated. The strategies used to achieve the research objectives and to accomplish the objectives are guided by theoretical research. The research is descriptive and exploratory, with a qualitative approach and a bibliographic character. The dissertation is divided into three chapters: in the first one, the extension of the term "support" expressed in art. 12 of the CRPD is addressed, based on official UN documents and doctrinal contributions. In addition, the discussion about the coexistence between supports and substitution of wills gains space. In Chapter 2, there is a complete presentation of the model of supports and safeguards proposed by Bach and Kerzner, as well as a contextualization of the Canadian legal system. Chapter 3 is dedicated to an analysis of the model previously exposed with the CRPD as a reference point, with a critical view and the possible points that could be used by the national system. In conclusion, it is noted that Bach and Kerzner's proposal is close to the premises of the CRPD and contributes to the exercise of legal capacity, since it expands the concept of decision-making skills by combining it with reasonable accommodations and supports. Moreover, the duties of accommodation can ground a right to recognition of supports in decision-making, which must be provided by private third parties and by governments. The Brazilian system deserves reform, among other reasons, because it does not take into account the person's decision-making abilities and its problems are not solved by the TDA (which also faces a serious problem of inapplicability in the courts). Thus, Bach and Kerzner’s model can serve as a parameter for modifications on the national system, because (a) there are clear gains to be made by including these two elements as a reference for the allocation of legal capacity; (b) more neutral and inclusive criteria such as those chosen by the authors are essential to enforce the principle of non-discrimination; (c) a more robust system of safeguards helps to avoid abuses in evaluations in the implementation of support; and (d) the provision of a wide range of support - before, during and after decision making - is essential to ensure the exercise of legal capacity.
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 | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,005 | 0,024 |
| Communication savante | 0,006 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
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 ».