MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7039521310

Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) while incarcerated vs Compassionate Release: a comprehensive analysis of “Dying with Dignity” within the Canadian correctional system

2024· dissertation· en· W7039521310 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueMspace (University of Manitoba) · 2024
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHealthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCovenantHuman rightsRight to healthDeclarationState (computer science)Health careCultural rightsMental healthConvention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The principle of equivalence of care asserts that incarcerated individuals have access to the same level of healthcare as the general population. Carceral institutions have been notably criticized for having substantially fewer resources available and overall poor access to healthcare services. Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) is a medical process that assists eligible individuals who are seeking to end their lives. To be eligible, one must be eligible for health services funded by provincial, territorial, or federal healthcare services, be 18 years old and mentally competent for making health decisions for one’s self and have a grievous and irremediable medical condition such as a disease, illness and disability and be in an advance state of decline that cannot be reversed which has resulted in unbearable pain, and mental suffering. The right to choose how and when to end one's life falls under the purview of the right to private life. Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) states that everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of a person. Article 12(1) of the International Covenant of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) states that the state parties to the Covenant recognize everyone's right to enjoy the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. Article 12(2), which ensures that state parties enable citizens to exercise this right while holding each binding state accountable to have the adequate means to exercise this right to its fullest potential, and specifically Article 12(2)(d), which recognizes the need for states to create conditions for sustaining medical services and medical attention in the event of sickness for all individuals, regardless of status in society. MAiD within Canadian carceral settings, however, presents difficulties because an inmate, by definition, is an individual who is denied their fundamental human rights. Using the foundation of these fundamental human rights, this report will argue for the use of Compassionate Release for terminally/dying inmates to allow these individuals to exercise their right to die with dignity and obtain the highest standard of healthcare during their last days.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.743
Threshold uncertainty score0.862

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.010
Science and technology studies0.0230.013
Scholarly communication0.0090.003
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMspace (University of Manitoba)Same topicHealthcare Decision-Making and RestraintsFrench-language works237,207