Medical assistance in dying in Canada: ethical, policy, and clinical considerations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper is an examination of the current Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) law in Canada and the various perspectives on this policy. This paper also examines the current state of knowledge and research conducted on this legislation in North America and Europe. `Clinical practice and ethical issues will also be explored from the perspectives of both social workers and physicians. The current state of palliative care in Canada and the services and supports available at end-of-life will be discussed. Alternatives to MAiD such as palliative sedation are examined. The debate over whether to extend access to vulnerable populations such as individuals living with a disability or using advance directives will also be analyzed. This paper will explore social work perspectives on MAiD and on end-of-life care issues and identify gaps and areas for future research. Additionally, the paper provides a list of recommendations based on current issues identified within the research.
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 | 0.025 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.035 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".