MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416854757 · doi:10.13162/hro-ors.v12i3.6731

Medical Assistance in Dying and its extensions in Canada

2025· article· fr· W4416854757 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Michel Grignon, Yukiko Asada, Leslie Anne Campbell, Scott Y. H. Kim, Nathan K. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Reform Observer - Observatoire des Réformes de Santé · 2025
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldPsychology
TopicHealthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupreme courtCriminal codePenal codePopulationCriticism

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) was allowed in 2016 through an amendment of the Criminal Code, prompted by a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. Initially, MAiD was open for patients with a grievous and irremediable condition and whose death was reasonably foreseeable (now referred to as Track 1). In 2021 another amendment created a second track for MAiD (Track 2), for which the “reasonably foreseeable” requirement was lifted. The 2021 amendment also opened the possibility of MAiD when a mental disorder is the sole underlying medical condition, a decision of which has been postponed to at least 2027. Since the amendment in 2021, Canada has become one of the countries with the least constrained access to MAiD and with the second highest MAiD prevalence as a share of total deaths. The concept of MAiD has been largely supported in the population and the need for safeguards to protect vulnerable individuals was balanced against access to that fundamental right. However, since the implementation of Track 2, criticism of MAiD has come not only from conservative perspectives but also from advocacy groups for persons living with disability. L’aide médicale à mourir (AMM) a été autorisée en 2016 grâce à une modification du Code criminel, à la suite d'une décision de la Cour suprême du Canada. Au départ, l’AMM était accessible aux patients atteints d’une condition grave et irrémédiable et dont le décès était « raisonnablement prévisible » (ce que l’on appelle aujourd’hui le premier volet). En 2021, un autre amendement a créé un deuxième volet pour l’AEM (voie 2), pour laquelle l’exigence de « décès raisonnablement prévisible » a été supprimée. La modification de 2021 a également ouvert la possibilité de recourir à l'aide médicale à mourir lorsqu’un trouble mental est la seule affection médicale invoquée, décision qui a été reportée au moins jusqu’en 2027. Depuis la modification de 2021, le Canada est devenu l’un des pays où l'accès à l'AMM est le moins restreint et où la prévalence de l’AMM est la deuxième plus élevée en pourcentage du nombre total de décès. Le concept de l’AMM a été largement soutenu par la population et, si la mise en place de garanties pour protéger les personnes vulnérables a été vue comme nécessaire, elle est aussi conçue comme ne devant pas entraver l’accès à ce droit fondamental. Cependant, depuis la mise en œuvre du deuxième volet, les critiques à l’égard de l’aide médicale à mourir proviennent non seulement des conservateurs, mais aussi des groupes de défense des personnes handicapées.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.177
Threshold uncertainty score0.955

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0150.006
Scholarly communication0.0100.002
Open science0.0030.007
Research integrity0.0060.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.339 · 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 routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Reform Observer - Observatoire des Réformes de SantéSame topicHealthcare Decision-Making and RestraintsFrench-language works237,207