A Conversation on Feminism, Ableism, and Medical Assistance in Dying
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores the recent expansion of Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) in Canada and its negative implications for women with disabilities. In 2021, the government extended MAiD to people with disabilities who are not dying, which the authors contend is a modern form of eugenics. Structured as a conversation and deploying a systemic, equality-based feminist analysis, the article tracks the shifts in scope and justification for MAiD through judicial and legislative developments, the overwhelming opposition by organizations representing people with disabilities, and the failure of feminist organizations to support their disabled sisters. The authors articulate a feminist response to the expansion of MAiD to address this troubling silence. After Isabel Grant sets out the foundations of Track 2 MAiD, Janine Benedet develops a critique of the concepts of autonomy, choice, and privacy as used by MAiD expansionists to justify these premature deaths. Elizabeth Sheehy explores some of the structural issues that affect the impetus for MAiD: women’s poverty, the medical profession, the gendered nature of caregiving, and men’s violence. Isabel Grant demonstrates the particular dangers for women of the extension of MAiD on the basis of mental illness, as evidenced by data from other countries. Catherine Frazee describes what a truly intersectional feminist approach to MAiD demands of more privileged feminists and concludes the conversation with a call for feminist solidarity.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it