After Disability Rights: Securing a Disabled Future in Ableist Times
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis is about the ongoing struggle for disability equality after the entry into force of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), the first legally binding treaty on disability rights. Specifically, it is concerned with disabled people’s right to live and remain in the world in the face of ableist medical and scientific practices, which challenge the notion that disabled lives are equal to nondisabled lives and undermine acceptance of disabled people as part of human diversity. \nEven though the CRPD provides a comprehensive account of disability rights, it does not address bioethical matters and the problem of ableism in medical and scientific practice has been largely understudied in disability legal scholarship. This thesis contributes to filling this gap by critically examining the regulation of disability at the beginning and end of life from a disability legal studies perspective. It does this by applying the human rights model of disability, reflected in the CRPD, to examine representative laws largely from the US, Canada, and the UK, in relation to: disability-selective abortion, assisted reproduction, medically assisted dying, treatment refusals and requests, access to controlled substances for palliative care, and access to experimental treatment. \nThe thesis argues that the regulation of disability undermines the human rights model of disability when laws confer greater opportunities for the birth and continued survival of the nondisabled. In doing so, the thesis stages an intervention at the intersection of disability studies, bioethics, and human rights law. The thesis concludes that disability inequality persists as a continuing problem because the same disabling attitudes about disabled people, predating the CRPD, have remained largely undisturbed in the regulation of disability at the beginning and end of life.
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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.054 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".