Bibliographic record
Abstract
International and domestic laws increasingly recognize health rights; international law clearly recognizes a right to health that includes health care entitlements and approximately 69% of domestic constitutions include a right to health care. Recognition of a positive right to health care has been slower to emerge in Canada, but there are nascent signs that the judiciary is receptive to the idea in principle. Challenges nonetheless remain – existing articulations of rights to health care do not easily fit the traditional ‘claim-right’ model of rights and questions remain over how to operationalize health rights, including how to do so without overwhelming the public fisc. It is difficult to resolve these issues in a manner that accounts for the structure of health rights in domestic constitutional laws, international human rights law, and philosophy. This work addresses these challenges and offers an account of the right to health care that is philosophically sound and operationalizable by courts and policymakers. I argue that a positive right to health care is best understood as a set of claims to related morally important goals. This pluralist understanding of the right can fit a modified version of the claim-right model and is independently justifiable. It is also consistent with the structure of health rights in international human rights law and some existing positive constitutional health rights. I next explain how to measure compliance with this pluralist right, providing an account of what the right to health care must accomplish in concrete terms. I then apply the metrics that I developed to the Canadian health care system and explore how three branches of public law (constitutional law, human rights law, and administrative law) can improve Canada’s scores on those metrics. I ultimately argue that all three branches can be reformed to better realize the pluralist right to health care.
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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".