Bibliographic record
Abstract
Assisted suicide has once again surfaced as an issue of public attention. Just in the past year, four cases have been in the news. In addition the results of a major study on the attitudes of cancer patients in palliative care towards euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide and the results of an Ipsos Reid public opinion poll on assisted suicide were released. Vigorous calls both for and against the decriminalization of assisted suicide followed. Given that it has been fifteen years since the release of the most famous assisted suicide case in Canada, and given this recent spate of attention, we believe that it is worth re-engaging with the issue of the legal status of assisted suicide in Canada. Therefore, in this paper, we first describe the history and current legal status of assisted suicide in Canada. We then argue that, under new evidence and new jurisprudence only available after the Rodriguez decision was releases, s. 241(b) of the Criminal Code (the prohibition on assisted suicide) is unconstitutional - violating s.7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and not saved by s.1. We also append an annotated draft statute that the federal Parliament course use were it to take up the challenge we issue at the end of the paper.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.106 | 0.019 |
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".