Whether the court should consider the concept of dignity in decisions regarding end-of-life ethics?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The concept of dignity is seldom mentioned or considered throughout Canada’s legal system. We rarely see legislation or court decisions that entail the concept of dignity, either explicitly or implicitly. When dignity is discussed, it is often looked at as an abstract and unspoken factor of jurisprudence. Yet, the concept of dignity is present in almost every sphere of human life and within a person’s right to die. It begs the question, should the courts consider the concept of dignity in decisions regarding end-of-life ethics? When dignity is viewed as the foundation of human life, is there an obligation to consider a person’s dignity when attempting to access Medical Aid in Dying measures or palliative care?\nThis three-episode podcast looks to explore these very questions. The first episode of the podcast looks at whether dignity exists in the Canadian constitution, what the working definition of dignity entails, and how we explore dignity in an academic and legal context. The second episode of the podcast explores the current landscape of dignity in the judiciary, the impact of systematic discrimination and oppression on dying with dignity, as well as the current legislation and short-comings of end-of-life ethics. The third and final episode analyzes how the judiciary should address the impact of systematic discrimination and oppression, as well as indignity, on an individual’s ability to access end-of-life ethics.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.029 | 0.086 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.026 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.027 | 0.036 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".