Biopower, juridical power and the afterlife of rights: Medical assistance in dying and the Supreme Court of Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article considers how different modalities of power emerge in medical assistance in dying (MAID) cases, particularly with respect to the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Carter v. Canada (A.G.) [2015]. While juridical rationalities cast the issue of MAID in terms of individual rights, Carter and subsequent legislation distinguishes MAID from assisted suicide through the creation of a regulatory scheme, so that individuals seeking MAID continue to be governed by medical power. This may seem to confirm arguments that the image of subjectivity evoked by juridical discourses simply results in the reinforcement of existing power relations. However, this article argues that it is the very regulatory scheme governing MAID that provides points of resistance, giving the individual opportunities to challenge medical power in ways that may destabilize power relations.
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 | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.042 | 0.055 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".