Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) in Canada: A Critical Analysis of the Exclusion of Vulnerable Populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canadian medical assistance in dying (MAiD) legislation was introduced in 2016.Although Bill C-14 attempted to balance patient autonomy and the protection of the vulnerable, recent court challenges suggest that an ideal balance has not been achieved.Numerous advocacy initiatives as well as a parliamentary review currently focus on three specific populations: mature minors, patients requesting MAiD via an advance directive and patients with a mental illness as the sole underlying condition.This article approaches these issues from an ethical and legal lens.We first outline a policy review on existing MAiD legislation in 11 jurisdictions.We then use the Oakes test (a critical assessment tool in the Carter v Canada case) to determine whether the restrictions on the three above-mentioned groups are consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.Finally, we consult our literature review to propose reasonable solutions that would be more consistent with the Charter. RésuméLa loi canadienne sur l' aide médicale à mourir (AMM) a été adoptée en 2016.Même si le projet de loi C-14 tentait d' assurer un équilibre entre autonomie du patient et protection des vulnérables, les récentes contestations judicaires portent à croire que l'idéal en matière d'équilibre n' a pas été atteint.Plusieurs initiatives de défense des droits, ainsi qu' une revue parlementaire, portent sur trois groupes de la population : les mineurs matures, les patients qui veulent pouvoir faire une demande anticipée d' AMM et les patients dont la maladie mentale est la seule condition sous-jacente.L' article aborde ces enjeux du point de vue éthique et juridique.En premier lieu, nous décrivons les politiques d' AMM en place dans 11 autorités sanitaires.Ensuite, nous employons les critères de l' arrêt Oakes (outil d'évaluation critique dans le dossier Carter c. Canada) pour déterminer si les restrictions touchant les trois groupes mentionnés ci-dessus sont conformes à la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés.Pour terminer, nous avons consulté notre revue de la littérature pour avancer des solutions raisonnables qui sont plus conformes à la Charte.
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 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".