The Dilemma of Positive Rights: Access to Health Care and the <i>Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An important debate implicating rights and Canadian social policy concerns whether the Charter of Rights and Freedoms should largely be limited to protecting negative rights, which prevent interference from government, or whether it should include positive rights, which require governments to provide entitlements to social services like health care, housing, or some minimum standard of welfare. After examining the Supreme Court of Canada’s approach to social rights under the Charter, this essay critically assesses the arguments in favour of expanding constitutional protection for positive rights. Although the essay finds that much of the judicial caution regarding positive rights is appropriate, the court’s reasoning in several controversial health policy cases is insufficiently attentive to the positive rights implications of its ostensibly negative rights approach. This essay thus sheds new light on the debate by demonstrating how cases on abortion, supervised drug injection facilities, and assisted suicide present a difficult dilemma from both a policy and rights perspective: courts may rightly avoid creating new social and economic rights, but the rationale they advance in applying negative rights in these cases provides an equally compelling basis for a positive right to access. It is a conundrum that both courts and the elected branches of government need to do more to address.
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 | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.063 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".