Les enjeux juridiques et éthiques du dépistage prénatal: analyse comparative entre le Québec et la France
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the years, we have become masters of our own destiny. Thanks to recent developments in medical technology, we now have a better control on what tomorrow will be. Indeed, thanks to prenatal screening, we have access to masses of information that allows us to decide which direction to take. This infinite power, unknown up to now, allows us to see beyond the horizon. However, this type of power comes subsequently with huge responsibilities for the child to come and for oneself. The choice of screening or not the future child is full of serious consequences. Anxiety, stress and fear can become the reality of many parents proceeding to prenatal screening. Once the results are out, there is no going back. The parents will then have to take a heart-breaking decision: bring to life a handicapped child or end the pregnancy. This reflects the ultimate expression of our freedom. Prenatal screening will therefore be the main subject of this essay. First, a comparative analysis will be made between Quebec and France to highlight the legal issues of prenatal screening. We will refer to the fondamental rights of the fetus as well as the legal faux pas related to a program of prenatal screening such as accessibility and medical liability. Second, ethical issues will be explained and analyzed. Choice, or the absence of it, as well as the question of eugenics will be elaborated. Avenues of solutions will then be brought-up and criticized.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".