MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408549228 · doi:10.1080/13576275.2025.2481265

Suicide-risk implications in legalising medical assistance in dying for mental disorders

2025· article· en· W4408549228 on OpenAlexaffabout
Matias Gay

Bibliographic record

VenueMortality · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Canadian institutionsIzaak Walton Killam Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychiatryMedicineMedical emergencyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The implementation of Medical Assistance in Dying where mental disorder is the sole underlying medical condition (MAID MD-SUMC) in Canada has sparked significant concerns, particularly following the passage of Bill C-7 in 2021. This paper delves into complex concerns surrounding MAID MD-SUMC by reviewing the 2023 summary report of the special Joint Committee established to assess Canada’s preparedness for this profound policy change. The report highlights key challenges, especially in the areas of assessing medical irremediability, distinguishing MAID MD-SUMC from suicidality, and safeguarding vulnerable populations. A central concern identified is the difficulty in differentiating acute suicidality from underlying mental disorders, a task complicated by the need to accurately assess decisional capacity in individuals experiencing suicidal ideation. The report also underscores the risks associated with stigmatising vulnerable groups and the potential for indirect harm through suggestion, accommodation, and contagion effects. These findings emphasise the importance of addressing the recommendations outlined in this paper during the interim period before full implementation in 2027, with a focus on continuous reassessment and the development of robust safeguards. The ethical advancement of MAID policies hinges on prioritising the rights and safety of all individuals, ensuring that safeguards align with the complex and multifaceted nature of suicide risk.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.050
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.382
Threshold uncertainty score0.760

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.050
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.008
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.361 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMortalitySame topicSuicide and Self-Harm StudiesFrench-language works237,207