New law and ethics in mental health advance directives: the convention on the rights of person with disabilities and the right to choose
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The recognition of positive rights and the growing impact of human rights principles has recently orchestrated a number of reforms in mental health law, bringing increasing entitlement to an array of health services. In this book, Penelope Weller considers the relationship between human rights and mental health law, and the changing attitudes which have led to the recognition of a right to demand treatment internationally. Weller discusses the ability of those with mental health problems to use advance directives to make a choice about what treatment they receive in the future, should they still be unable to decide for themselves. Focusing on new perspectives offered by the Conventions on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), Weller explores mental health law from a variety of international perspectives including: Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom, where policies differ depending on whether you are in England and Wales, or Scotland. These case studies indicate how human rights perspectives are shifting mental health law from a constricted focus upon treatment refusal, towards a recognition of positive rights. The book covers topics including: refusing treatment new approaches in human rights international perspectives in mental health law the right to demand treatment. The text will appeal to legal and mental health professionals as well as academics studying mental health law, and policy makers.
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 | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".