Federal and Provincial Responsibilities to Implement Physician-Assisted Suicide.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the most significant constitutional decision of the last generation, Carter v. Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada reversed itself and decided that it was possible for Parliament to enact safeguards that would be adequate to protect persons who are vulnerable in times of weakness, then proceeded to declare that Canadians were entitled to a s. 7 Charter right to physician-assisted death. David Baker and Gilbert Sharpe accepted the challenge issued by the Court and drafted a Bill to amend the Criminal Code in a manner they believed would strike a constitutional balance between providing access to the right declared by the Court and protecting the vulnerable. This article represents their attempt, along with co-author Rebeka Lauks, to explain many of the key provisions in their draft. Amongst the most noteworthy are their attempts to ensure that those choosing PAD are informed about quality of life, as well as treatment choices; to define vulnerability and to install safeguards adequate to protect persons while vulnerable; and finally a prior review process that would ensure both ready access to the Charter right declared by the Court and consistent and transparent application of the law. The authors have attempted to establish an alternative model to that currently in effect in the Benelux countries, which they regard as having been ineffective in achieving any of these objectives.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.002 |
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".