MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W148242561

Moving Forward with a Clear Conscience: A Model Conscientious Objection Policy for Canadian Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons

2013· article· en· W148242561 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jocelyn Downie, Jacquelyn Shaw, Carolyn McLeod

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarship@Western (Western University) · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Contraception
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDutyConscienceAbortionConscientious objectorLawMedicineMalpracticeObligationLiabilityPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2008, one of us (JD) together with the former Dean of Law at the University of Ottawa (Sanda Rodgers), wrote a guest editorial for the Canadian Medical Association Journal on the topic of access to abortion in Canada. In the editorial, we argued, among other things, that "health care professionals who withhold a diagnosis, fail to provide appropriate referrals, delay access, misdirect women or provide punitive treatment are committing malpractice and risk lawsuits and disciplinary proceedings." In response to a series of letters to the editor written about our editorial, we wrote that, under the CMA Code of Ethics (Update 2004) and the CMA Induced Abortion policy (1988), "all physicians are under an obligation to refer"—that is, to make referrals for abortion—and "[the policy] does not allow a right of conscientious objection in relation to referrals."The Executive Director of the CMA Office of Ethics (Jeff Blackmer) then weighed in, asserting that we were mistaken with respect to physicians' duty to refer. Several months later, the Co-Chairs of the Parliamentary Pro-Life Caucus wrote to our law deans and "ask[ed] that you take the necessary steps to ensure that your Faculty members -- who have tremendous power to influence the minds of our future lawyers and doctors -- not allow their own personal biases to impair their ability to accurately represent the law." The extreme reaction to the suggestion that physicians have a duty to refer when patients request abortion services planted the seed for the development of a model policy on conscientious objections for Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons.Inspired in part by the above sequence of events, Carolyn McLeod brought together a team of academics from philosophy and law to reflect on the moral and legal dimensions of conscientious refusals in healthcare.The meetings of this team provided rich soil within which to germinate the seed for a model policy. In this paper, we recount the stages that were involved in developing this policy and then present the policy itself in the hopes of encouraging its adoption by Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons across the country.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.113
Threshold uncertainty score0.899

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.262 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholarship@Western (Western University)Same topicReproductive Health and ContraceptionFrench-language works237,207