Naissance lotus : considérations juridiques et éthiques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lotus birth is a spiritual practice that requires non-severance of the cord, in which way the placenta remains attached to the newborn until it naturally detaches. This practice is sometimes requested in obstetrical units within health and social services institutions. In a context where Quebec society increasingly values autonomy, openness to plurality, and spirituality, it becomes essential to explore the specific issues related to lotus birth requests. The objective of this essay is to initiate reflection from a legal and ethical perspective, based on the foundations of lotus birth practice and generally recognize scientific knowledge, especially in the absence of any specific Quebec or Canadian jurisprudence on lotus birth. Based on a literature review comprising scientific articles and doctrinal texts specific to lotus birth, legal considerations are presented by examining the relevant international, Canadian, and Quebec legislative framework. The legal reflection is structured according to the interested parties: children, parents, healthcare professionals, and health and social services institutions. Ethical considerations are examined through the lens of clinical ethics, addressing the principles of autonomy, value pluralism, and care partnership. Throughout the examination of these various considerations, potential solutions are suggested.
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 | 0.014 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.045 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".