Bibliographic record
Abstract
As in Canada, there is very limited common law specifically relating to extremely preterm infants. How the courts might act if presented with questions concerning life-sustaining treatment for such infants may be derived by considering the legal history of the extent of parental and physician autonomy over treatment decisions for children, and how the courts might exercise the best interests test for disabled children. Australian law recognizes that once a baby is born alive, that baby becomes a legal person,(369–370) with the full protection of the law. However, in 1988 the National Health and Medical Research Council(371) reported that: “contrary to popular belief and common practice, parents do not have the legal right to determine that their infant be refused medical treatment without which the infant would die” and that “in cases of extremely low birth weight babies … it is likely both doctors and parents make decisions which are not acceptable under present Australian laws.” In 1986, in F v. F (unreported, 2 July) Vincent J, in the Supreme Court of Victoria, judged that physicians have a legal obligation to sustain the life of a child without concern for quality of life: “The law does not permit decisions to be made concerning the quality of life nor any assessment of the value of any human life.”(372) But this statement was made in an urgent hearing, and the judge made it clear that he was only dealing with the urgent specific question at hand, which was feeding for the infant, who had spina bifida.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.217 | 0.071 |
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".