Is Mandatory Neonatal Eye Prophylaxis Ethically Justified? A Case Study from Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines whether a policy of mandatory neonatal eye prophylaxis is ethically justified within the Canadian context. An existing framework for public health ethics is used to examine criteria that would justify state intervention in parental decision-making authority in order to protect public health. The benefits, harms, and utility of mandatory neonatal eye prophylaxis are described. Established criteria for the infringement of basic individual liberties in the interests of public health, including effectiveness, proportionality, necessity, least infringement and public justification, are considered. The extent and limits of parental decision-making authority are then discussed, and conditions that warrant state intervention in parental decision-making based on the harm principle are reviewed. Ultimately, infringement of parental authority is not deemed to be necessary to protect public health or to protect the newborn in this case and existing circumstances do not meet any criteria that would justify such an infringement. Mandatory eye prophylaxis is found not to be ethically justified in the current Canadian context.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".