Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Carter v Canada (AG) decriminalized medical aid in dying in certain defined circumstances. One of those circumstances is that the person seeking assistance be an “adult.” This article argues that the regulatory response to this decision must approach the idea of “adult” in terms of the actual medical-decisional capacity of any given individual, and not rely upon age as a substitute for capacity. This article surveys jurisdictions where minors are included in physician-assisted dying regimes, and identifies what little empirical evidence exists regarding requests from minors. The heart of the article considers the jurisprudence on mature minors and when they are deemed to have the right to require the withdrawal of, or refuse to receive, life-sustaining treatment, and compares the reasoning in these cases with that in Carter. A particular focus of this article is on how the jurisprudence approaches decisional capacity when the individual in question may be particularly vulnerable. It finds that a blanket exclusion of mature minors from a physician-assisted dying regime likely violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and calls out for considered debate on these issues instead of forcing a minor and their family to bring the issues forward through litigation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".