MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402311980 · doi:10.5195/pom.2024.212

Understanding Asymmetrical Opposition to Medical Assistance in Dying for Mental Illness

2024· article· en· W4402311980 on OpenAlexaffabout
Thomas Milovac

Bibliographic record

VenuePhilosophy of Medicine · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Treatment and Access
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOpposition (politics)Mental illnessPsychiatryPsychologyMental healthPolitical scienceLawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Canada medical assistance in dying (MAiD) excludes individuals who have a mental health disorder as their sole underlying medical condition (MD-SUMC).This suggests mental illness is conceptually distinct from somatic illness, a position that requires further analysis.The Canadian government has postponed legislation on mental health conditions since it is highly controversial compared to physical illness, and this will allow them to collect more data on the issue (Government of Canada 2024a).Aside from the legislative reality in Canada, Jeffrey Kirby (2022) has described three positions that scholars have taken up regrading the ethical permissibility of MAiD for MD-SUMC: (a) accept that MAiD for MD-SUMC is ethically permissible; (b) presently oppose MAiD for MD-SUMC, but maintain that MAiD for MD-SUMC could become ethically permissible should the current eligibility criteria better align with the relevant empirical data; and (c) oppose MAiD for MD-SUMC on "philosophical grounds" and maintain that no alteration could make the practice ethically permissible.If we assume that each view described by Kirby also entails the claim that MAiD in general is ethically permissible, or at the very least is not ethically impermissible, it appears that opposition to MAiD for MD-SUMC reveals something important about the way in which mental illness is understood-namely, as something perhaps categorically different from somatic illness.This results from the asymmetry between holding that MAiD for somatic illness is ethically permissible, but MAiD for MD-SUMC is ethically impermissible.At present there are five conditions that must be met in order for one to be eligible for MAiD: (1) be eligible for government-funded health services; (2) be competent and at least 18 years of age; (3) voluntarily request MAiD; (4) provide informed consent; and (5) have a grievous and irremediable medical condition (Government of Canada 2024b).To determine whether one's medical condition is grievous and irremediable, there are further conditions that must be met: (i) "have a serious illness, disease, or disability;" (ii) "be in an advanced state of decline that cannot be reversed;" and (iii) "experience unbearable physical or mental suffering from your illness, disease, disability or state of decline that cannot be relieved under conditions that you consider acceptable" (Government of Canada 2024b; emphasis in original).Emphasis tends to be placed on the grievous and irremediable nature of one's medical condition in debates on MAiD for MD-SUMC (Birkness and Rudnick 2023).For example,

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.738
Threshold uncertainty score0.877

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.214
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.228 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhilosophy of MedicineSame topicMental Health Treatment and AccessFrench-language works237,207