Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Canadian medical assistance in dying (MAID) law is commonly understood as a type of medically-based euthanasia and/or assisted suicide (EAS) law. I argue it is instead an autonomy-only EAS regime masquerading as such. The public guidance on the law’s broad eligibility criteria that direct current practice employs novel meanings to familiar terms used in healthcare. The result is that the law gives the impression that Canadian MAID is about something medical, but in reality operates as an autonomy-only model, i.e., “death on autonomous demand” clothed as medical treatment. The implications are significant. It allows bypassing the debates that an autonomy-only system (which is not inherently medical) would need to address, such as whether autonomy-only EAS comports with common morality, whether and how the health care system should be involved, how many resources the state should invest in promoting a death-on-request system, etc. The law also distorts the practice of medicine by using patients’ subjective preference (i.e., patients’ preference), rather than science and evidence, as determining medical standards and in defining terms such as ‘incurable.’ This masquerade has been reinforced by Canadian officials in their public statements. The result seems to be a Canadian public highly supportive of a law that they do not fully understand and indeed would likely disapprove of in its current form, if they did. The Canadian MAID law is a product of flawed democratic policymaking.
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 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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".