Law, Vulnerability and Medical Assistance in Dying in Canada: A Post-Carter Policy Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This project focuses on assisted-dying policy in Canada; assisted-dying was legalized in February 2015 as per the Carter v. Canada (Attorney General) (2015) ruling, because the longstanding blanket prohibition of assisted-dying was found to be unconstitutional as it violated the plaintiff’s s. 7 right to life, liberty and security of the person. In June 2016, Bill C-14: An Act to Amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other Acts (2016) was enacted federally. One of the main concerns from various sources regarding this legislation is that an individual’s natural death must be reasonably foreseeable to access MAID. Bill C-14 (2016) excludes individuals who do not have a ‘foreseeable natural death’ from accessing medical assistance in dying. The current policy has not found a balance between the need to protect vulnerable populations from becoming victims to assisted-dying and is not accessible to those who are suffering from non-terminal illnesses or are deemed vulnerable.\nThe methodology used in this research was a policy analysis, using court cases/rulings, federal legislation, provincial policies, transcripts, and legislative backgrounds/summaries. In addition, the co-investigator conducted two one-on-one semi-structured interviews to supplement the main data.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.378 | 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".