Interrogating Safeguards Under the Mental Health Act in Ontario: Towards a Postmodernist Relational Understanding of Disability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Employing critical discourse analysis (CDA), this paper examines how medicalized concepts of mental illness and paternalistic views are framed and used in the legal case, Thompson and Empowerment Council v. Ontario (2013). The paper argues that the case utilizes a pathologized notion of mental illness to justify and defend the legality of involuntary treatment, specifically, the community treatment orders (CTOs) under Ontario’s Mental Health Act (MHA). This paper shows how the Thompson case relies on medical reductionism and binary notions of capacity versus incapacity while failing to consider intersecting factors and contextual and social determinants of psychosocial disability. Following this, I suggest that a postmodernist relational theory of disability could change the legal discourses about the MHA. Challenging the medicalized view of mental illness through the relational approach to psychosocial disability could have strengthened the plaintiffs’ case and prompted legal reforms for better safeguards under the MHA. In doing so, this paper offers a basis and future direction for legal reforms that can lead to legal mandates for improved social and healthcare services to enhance the autonomy of individuals subjected to CTOs.
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 | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.099 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| 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".