La Responsabilité Médicale et Hospitalière Pour le Non-Respect des Volontés de Fin-de-Vie en Droit Civil Québécois (Liability of Physicians and Hospitals for Omitting to Comply with an End-of-Life Directive under Quebec Civil Law)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
En 2005, le legislateur francais accordait un statut officiel aux directives anticipees, mais enoncait, au meme moment, son refus de leur reconnaitre une force obligatoire. Qu’en est-il des autres ressorts de droit civil? Ce texte evalue la position du droit quebecois quant a la force obligatoire des volontes de fin de vie anticipees et analyse dans quelles conditions leur non respect entrainera la responsabilite des intervenants medicaux. Le traitement quebecois de ces questions est particulierement interessant car, bien que le Code civil du Quebec prevoie la possibilite de formuler de telles volontes dans le cadre d’un mandat en prevision de l’inaptitude, son traitement de leur force obligatoire reste ambigu.In 2005, the French legislature granted official status to end-of-life directives. At the same time, however, it refused to grant them binding power. What is the status of end-of-life directives in other civil law jurisdictions? This text examines the binding power of end-of-life directives in Quebec and analyses the conditions under which omitting to comply with them could attract liability to healthcare actors. Quebec's treatment of these questions is particularly interesting given that the binding power of the directives remains ambiguous despite provisions in the Civil Code of Quebec providing for the formulation of end-of-life directives in the context of a mandate given in anticipation of the mandatory’s incapacity.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".