Towards a Human Rights — Based Contraceptive Policy; A Critique of Anti-Sterilisation Law in Poland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Sterilisation is one of the safest, most effective and most widely used method of family planning in the world. However, it is illegal and inaccessible in Poland. This paper argues that implications of the anti-sterilisation policy in Poland amount to a violation of human rights, especially the right to respect for private and family life and the right to equality. It also explores this question with regard to the right to health. In particular, the argument goes, the rights-based challenges to the criminal prohibition of sterilisation require a gender-sensitive perspective on contraceptive policy that recognises the intimate connection between reproductive choice and the status of women. Certain concerns associated with contraceptive sterilisation (e.g. fear of abuse or post-sterilisation regret) would be addressed more appropriately by less restrictive measures that respect rights of individuals and better respond to their needs - in particular a system of counselling, confining decisions about sterilisation to the doctor-patient level and basing them on free and informed choice. The paper concludes that sterilisation policy should be part of the comprehensive reproductive health policy built upon respect for human rights and principles of equality and public health, as opposed to the present Polish government's policy, which is ideologically driven and does not conform to international standards.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.053 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".