Draft Provincial/Territorial Legislation to Implement a Regulatory Framework for Medically-Assisted Dying Consistent with Carter v. Canada (Attorney General) 2015 SCC 5 and the Final Report of the Provincial-Territorial Expert Advisory Group on Physician-
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On February 6, 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously declared that the Criminal Code prohibitions on physician-assisted dying (both assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia) violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They immediately suspended the declaration for 12 months thus allowing the government time to craft new legislation. This paper is a contribution to the project of meeting that deadline -- it presents draft provincial/territorial legislation. This draft legislation is based on: 1) a thorough review of existing legislation in all permissive regimes throughout the world (reviewed through a lessons learned lens); 2) the requirements for constitutional validity set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in Carter v. Canada (Attorney General); 3) the Final Report of the Provincial-Territorial Expert Advisory Group on Physician-Assisted Dying; and 4) other relevant case law. Specifically, medically-assisted dying includes both assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia. Access is limited to assistance provided to individuals who have a grievous condition (including illness, disease or disability) that cannot be alleviated by means acceptable to the person and causes enduring physical or psychological suffering that is intolerable to the individual in the circumstances of his or her condition. Assisted dying is only permitted with the free and informed consent of the individual. The rights and interests of patients and health care providers are reconcile rights to and interests in both access and conscience. Procedural safeguards and a national oversight system are established.
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 | 0.022 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".