MAiD in Canada and the Homo Economicus View of Dignity: Inclusive Enough?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Both Carter and Bill C-14 provide an interpretation of human dignity linked to and dependent on autonomy. By relating human dignity to autonomy, the Supreme Court of Canada and the Canadian Federal Government seem to support an anthropological view of dignity centered on the idea of the homo economicus. However, this is not the only view of human dignity. The author argues that a better (i.e., more pluralistic and inclusive) anthropological view of human dignity should capture the diversity of persons and the richness of the human life in a more integral way, without excluding those people who do not meet the homo economicus standards. Specifically, the author discusses the Personalist view of human dignity, according to which human dignity is (a) intrinsic to every human being, simply in virtue of their humanity, and therefore (b) not lost when autonomy is gone. The author discusses the Personalist view of human dignity and juxtaposes it against the homo economicus view, to show the inclusiveness of the former and the shortcomings of the latter. By closely examining the Personalist view of human dignity, the author dispels the claims that human dignity can ever be lost and be restored by euthanasia and assisted suicide—claims that stem from both Carter’s and Bill C-14’s interpretations of dignity.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".