The Ethics of Compulsory Treatment of Addictions Under Canadian Legislation: Restricting Freedom to Promote Long-Term Autonomy?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The opioid epidemic has brought a growing focus on the treatment of addictions. Some have proposed that patients with severe addiction be subject to mandated compulsory treatment under Canadian Mental Health Legislation, paralleling the growing use of civil commitment for addiction treatment in the United States. This article presents a bioethical analysis of the legal, medical, and societal implications of compulsory treatment for addiction under civil commitment. Concerns around patient autonomy, harm, efficacy, and social justice make compulsory treatment of addiction an inadequate routine option for a complex biopsychosocial illness. Instead, continued efforts to foster voluntary, evidence based and socially compassionate care for Canadians with addictions must be emphasized through policy and research. Résumé L’épidémie d’opioïdes met de plus en plus l’accent sur le traitement des dépendances. Certains ont proposé que les patients souffrant de toxicomanie grave soient soumis à un traitement obligatoire en vertu de la législation canadienne sur la santé mentale, parallèlement à l’utilisation croissante de l’engagement civil pour le traitement de la toxicomanie aux États-Unis. Cet article présente une analyse bioéthique des implications juridiques, médicales et sociétales du traitement obligatoire de la dépendance sous l’engagement civil. Les préoccupations concernant l’autonomie, le préjudice, l’efficacité et la justice sociale des patients font du traitement obligatoire de la toxicomanie une option de routine inadéquate pour une maladie biopsychosociale complexe. Au lieu de cela, il faut mettre l’accent sur les politiques et la recherche afin de favoriser les soins volontaires, fondés sur des preuves et socialement compatissants pour les Canadiens souffrant de toxicomanie.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".