Denying Assisted Dying Where Death is Not ‘Reasonably Foreseeable’: Intolerable Overgeneralization in Canadian End-of-Life Law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The recent change in Canadian law to allow access to medical assistance in dying restricts eligibility, among its other criteria, to those for whom “natural death has become reasonably foreseeable.” A recent review of certain aspects of the law examined the evidence pertaining to extending access to assisted dying in three particular request situations currently denied: requests by mature minors, advance requests, and requests where mental illness is the sole underlying medical condition [1]. The requirement for this review was included in the legislation that introduced medical assistance in dying in Canada. Both the original change in the law and the review itself neglected to consider those with intolerable suffering for whom natural death is not reasonably foreseeable. This paper explores the possibility that access to assisted dying should be extended by removing this limiting criterion. It also considers the ethical challenges this might present for those who work in rehabilitation.
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 | 0.061 | 0.146 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| 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".