De la stérilisation au droit à la procréation, quel est l'intérêt réel du majeur inapte en situation de déficience intellectuelle?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé: Le présent ouvrage porte sur le droit à la procréation du majeur inapte en situation de déficience intellectuelle et fait état des courants jurisprudentiels et législatifs contemporains en cette matière, principalement en regard de la stérilisation à visée contraceptive. À cet effet, la justice rejette systématiquement toute forme de motivation à caractère eugénique et place le seul intérêt de la personne au centre de ses préoccupations. Au Canada, le droit à la procréation de ces dernières semble actuellement protégé de l'ingérence des proches, des intervenants et des institutions qu'ils représentent. L'intégrité physique revêt par ailleurs un caractère absolu, faisant de la stérilisation contraceptive une intervention hautement préjudiciable dont l'accessibilité semble illusoire. Cette approche est cependant contestée. En plus des dispositions législatives adoptées par certains pays, on note qu'un bon nombre de décisions des tribunaux américains et anglais ont interprété le critère du meilleur intérêt de la personne en faveur d'une telle procédure. Ce paradoxe est d'un certain intérêt et il nous incite à une analyse approfondie du discours jurisprudentiel de ces instances de façon à mieux cibler les éléments constitutifs de ce critère.||Abstract: This analysis focuses on the reproductive rights of the incapable adult with intellectual disabilities and outlines the case law as well as legislative trends in this area, primarily concerning sterilization for contraceptive purposes. In this regard, the courts systematically reject all forms of eugenic indications and place the sole interest of the person at the center of their concerns. In Canada, the reproductive rights of people with intellectual disabilities seems protected from the interference of relatives, caregivers and institutions. Physical integrity seems also to be absolute, making contraceptive sterilization a highly detrimental intervention and thus unavailable. This approach, however, is disputed. In addition to legislation adopted by some countries, it is noted that many of the decisions of American and English courts have interpreted the criterion of the best interests of the person in favor of non-therapeutic sterilization. This paradox is of some interest and it invites us to make an analysis of the legal discourse of these bodies in order to better target the central elements of this criterion.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".