Quelques réflexions éthiques autour du respect de l’autonomie et du consentement, dans le contexte de l’aide médicale à mourir en situation de handicap
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’accès à l’aide médicale à mourir respecte-t-il l’autonomie des personnes en situation de handicap? Nous postulons que la notion d’autonomie, entendue dans son sens procédural, et son application étroite dans le domaine des soins de santé, notamment à travers la pratique du consentement libre et éclairé, doivent être repensées pour prendre en compte le contexte et l’environnement plus large dans lequel s’inscrit la demande de mort assistée. En abordant le capacitisme et l’approche relationnelle de l’autonomie, nous considérons différents enjeux inhérents à l’accès à l’aide médicale à mourir pour les personnes en situation de handicap physique. Le concept d’autonomie relationnelle sera abordé en tant que potentiel moteur de changement en regard de la justice, et en particulier de la justice sociale.
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 | 0.022 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.067 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".