Bibliographic record
Abstract
Carter is a bellwether decision, an adjudication on a narrow point of law whose implications are vast across society, and whose impact may not be realized for years. Coupled with Quebec's Act Respecting End-of-life Care it has sharply changed the legal landscape with respect to actively ending a person's life. "Medically assisted dying" will be permitted under circumstances, and through processes, which have yet to be operationally defined. This decision carries with it moral assumptions, which mean that it will be difficult to reach a unifying consensus. For some, the decision and Act reflect a modern acknowledgement of individual autonomy. For others, allowing such acts is morally unspeakable. Having opened the Pandora's Box, the question becomes one of navigating a tolerable societal path. I believe it is possible to achieve a workable solution based on the core principle that "medically assisted dying" should be a very rarely employed last option, subject to transparent ongoing review, specifically as to why it was deemed necessary. My analysis is based on 1. The societal conditions in which have fostered demand for "assisted dying", 2. Actions in other jurisdictions, 3. Carter and Quebec Bill 52, 4. Political considerations, 5. Current medical practice. Leading to a series of recommendations regarding. 1. Legislation and regulation, 2. The role of professional regulatory agencies, 3. Medical professions education and practice, 4. Public education, 5. Health care delivery and palliative care. Given the burden of public opinion, and the legal steps already taken, a process for assisted-dying is required. However, those legal and regulatory steps should only be considered a necessary and defensive first step in a two stage process. The larger goal, the second step, is to drive the improvement of care, and thus minimize assisted-dying.
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 | 0.014 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".