MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W327359422

Hopeful Result, Unclear Implications: A Comment on Canada (Attorney General) V. PHS Community Services Society

2013· article· en· W327359422 sur OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
C. Tess Sheldon, Lorraine E. Ferris, Carol Strıke

Notice bibliographique

RevueHealth law review · 2013
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueLegal Systems and Judicial Processes
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésAppealLawSupreme courtPossession (linguistics)LegislationGovernment (linguistics)Political scienceBusinessPublic administration
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Introduction On September 30, 2011, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) issued its highly anticipated written decision on the constitutional implications of the federal government's refusal to renew an exemption to a supervised injection facility in Vancouver, Insite. (1) The exemption renewal had been sought to allow the facility to continue operating free from federal drug laws that prohibit illegal drug possession and trafficking. The SCC was called upon, among other things, to balance the competing interests of both public safety (prohibiting possession and trafficking of illegal drugs) and public health (support for drug users to reduce health issues associated with injection drug use). In a unanimous decision authored by its Chief Justice, the SCC ruled that failing to renew the exemption contravened the claimants' rights to life, liberty and security of the person. The Court ordered an immediate exemption for Insite so that it could continue operating as it was under its previous exemption. This paper considers whether and how the decision in Canada (Attorney General) v PHS Community Services Society might impact on the operation of future Canadian supervised injection facilities. After a background section about Insite and Canada's constitutional framework and relevant legislation, we review the lower court decisions, in so far that they assist in understanding the SCC's decision. Next, we review the appeal decision highlighting two notable aspects of that ruling relevant to this paper. Last, we explore ideological opposition to supervised injection sites and the possible implications of the Insite decision on the operation of future supervised injection facilities. Background Insite opened in September 2003 as North America's first government-sanctioned supervised injection facility (SIF). Since then it has provided clients with a facility to inject their own controlled drugs or substances under medical supervision. Insite and its staff do not provide the drugs or substances. Health Canada approved Insite's mandate to provide health care information, counseling and referrals, including to a detox and drug treatment centre located in the same building. Insite operates in the Downtown East Side (DTES) of Vancouver, Canada under the authority of the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority (VCHA). The DTES has a high concentration of those using drugs and is home to the poorest and most vulnerable people in Canada. (2) In the 1990s, the Province of British Columbia, through the VCHA, declared a public health emergency because the health situation for injection drug users reached levels. (3) Reports indicated exponential increases in fatal and non-fatal overdoses and increased rates of HIV/AIDS as well as hepatitis A, B and C infections. (4) Insite could only operate if it had an exemption from the federal criminal law, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA), (5) which prohibits possession and trafficking of controlled substances. In 2003, the federal Minister of Health granted Insite a statutory exemption to operate, however, in 2008, the federal government did not extend the exemption. The goals of SIFs are to reduce drug-related harms (i.e., transmission of HIV, sexually transmitted and blood-borne infections; and overdose); reduce other injection-related harms (e.g., skin and soft tissue damage and infections); reduce public disorder; improve knowledge of drug consumption risks and behavioural risk reduction techniques; and improve access to and delivery of health, social, and crisis services. (6) SIFs also offer respite from street-life. (7) Canada's Constitution Act (8) assigns powers between the federal and provincial governments. The federal government has authority to enact criminal laws, including laws concerning the possession and trafficking of drugs. (9) The Constitution Act also grants the provinces exclusive authority over the establishment, maintenance, and management of health facilities. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,007
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: Commentaire
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,111
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,807

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0070,024
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,002
Bibliométrie0,0020,004
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0310,016
Communication savante0,0120,004
Science ouverte0,0080,003
Intégrité de la recherche0,0610,044
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0070,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,050
Tête enseignante GPT0,352
Écart entre enseignants0,303 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreCommentaire

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2013
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueHealth law reviewMême sujetLegal Systems and Judicial ProcessesTravaux en français237 207