Will the S.C.C.'s Decision on Physician-Assisted Death Apply to Persons Suffering from Severe Mental Illness?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, the authors address the question of whether the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Carter v. Canada leaves open the possibility that persons with severe, treatment-refractory mental illness may lawfully seek a physician-assisted death. If so, how will health care providers distinguish between suicidal ideation and intent that is a symptom of the pathology of a treatable mental illness, on the one hand; and suicidal ideation and intent that is, perhaps, a capable and thoughtful response to a "grievous and irremediable" condition, on the other hand? Mental illness is the most common risk factor for suicide. If physician-assisted death becomes an accepted practice in mental health care, how will that be reconciled with the well-established impetus in mental health care to prevent suicide? The authors consider the competing ethical values of beneficence and promoting patient autonomy, in the context of the recovery movement in mental health care.
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 | 0.016 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.047 | 0.032 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".