MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7099668056

Perspectives Starson v. Swayze: The Supreme Court Speaks Out (Not all That Clearly) on the Question of “Capacity”

2013· article· en· W7099668056 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDenialCharterCriticismSupreme courtBest interestsEconomic JusticeMental capacityEx parteHealth care
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

in the Ontario Health Care Consent Act (HCCA) provoked concern and criticism from psychiatric quarters. This article seeks to explain the decision and its implications for Ontario and other provinces. Method: The majority and minority opinions in the Starson case, and 4 cases decided in Ontario since Starson, were closely analyzed. The literature on capacity was examined. The decision’s constitutional implications were considered. Results: Patients need not be able to understand that their condition constitutes an illness to be found capable of consenting to or refusing treatment. The focus should be on their ability to understand that they are affected by the condition’s manifestations. A patient’s “best interests ” are not relevant to the capacity determination. The majority opinion departed from the traditional role accorded to a patient’s denial of illness in determining capacity. Contrary to the views of some commentators, the Court’s discussion of the actual benefits and risks of the treatments prescribed for Starson had no bearing on the capacity issue. Three of the post-Starson cases examined complied with the Court’s holding; one did not. The majority’s distinction regarding what patients must be able to understand about their condition is likely not a “principle of fundamental justice ” under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the Charter). The right of the capable patient to refuse treatment and the irrelevance of the patient’s best interests likely do constitute such principles. Conclusions: Patients in Ontario cannot be found incapable because they deny they are ill. Ability to recognize the manifestations of their condition suffices. This distinction is probably only binding in Ontario. The capable patient’s right to refuse treatment and the irrelevance of the patient’s best interests likely are binding throughout Canada. (Can J Psychiatry 2007;52:390–396) Information on funding and support and author affiliations appears at the end of this article.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.925
Threshold uncertainty score0.463

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0160.020
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0070.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping→French-language works237,207→