Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide in the Post-Rodriguez Era: Lessons from Foreign Jurisdictions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Euthanasia and assisted suicide are highly controversial subjects that have drawn much attention in Canada over the last two decades. This paper outlines how the Netherlands, the United States, Australia, and Canada have approached the practices. Jurisprudence, public opinion polls, legislative developments, and the positions of medical organizations and their members are included in the analysis. A number of arguments for and against the continued prohibition of the practices in Canada are evaluated. As well, information regarding the extent to which euthanasia and assisted suicide are performed in these countries is assessed. It will be shown that Canadians currently enjoy significant control over decisions concerning end of life. The principles of autonomy and beneficence provide the foundation necessary to justify lifting the prohibition of voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide in Canada. With regard to the development of safeguards, the way in which foreign jurisdictions have dealt with both procedures is highly instructive. A qualified system of pre-authorization, unlike those adopted elsewhere, would prevent abuses from occurring and maintaining the prohibition of non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia. Since legislators are in the best position to deal with the issues, change in the law should be made by the government, not the judiciary. Practical legislation is feasible and a proposal of what this should entail is presented.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".