Conscientious objection to effective referral for medical assistance in dying: an analysis in terms of Rawlsian liberal political theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The recent legalization of medical assistance in dying (MAID) and the contentious mandatory \neffective referral policy implemented by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario \n(CPSO) have spurred robust legal and academic debate around the following question: to what \nextent should the CPSO limit physicians’ ability to conscientiously object to referrals for \nhealthcare services? Rawlsian political liberalism ranks conscience freedoms as fundamental \nliberties central to justice in a liberal democracy, whereas equality of access to goods or services \nrank secondarily. Mandatory effective referrals make unjust demands on some physicians by \nrequiring them to take positive action against their consciences. Patients should have direct \naccess to assenting physicians for services where fundamental moral disagreements are common, \nas is the case with abortion, for example. In order to protect patient autonomy, conscientious \nobjections should be public so that patients can make informed choices about their primary \nhealthcare providers prior to coming under their care.
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 | 0.011 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.044 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".