Competing Arguments in Carter v. Canada (2015): How the Supreme Court of Canada's Ruling Constitutionally Upholds Charter Rights and Reflects Societal Values
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The landmark Carter v Canada case of 2015 provided a new legal basis for medical assistance in dying for terminally ill people. The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision overturned the precedent set in the 1993 Rodriguez v British Columbia, citing that the Criminal Code (1982) provisions that prevented physicians from assisting terminally ill patients’ suicides were an infringement on the right to life, liberty, and security in section 7 of the Charter (1982). By making it illegal for terminally ill people to access medical assistance in dying, these people are at a greater risk of terminating their life earlier while still physically being able to, hence the infringement. This article focuses on the arguments made in these two cases, how the interpretation of the arguments differed in the socio-legal context of when they appeared in court, and how the Supreme Court of Canada’ ruling in the Carter v Canada (2015) constitutionally upholds Charter rights and the living tree doctrine.
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 | 0.009 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.038 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.022 |
| 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".