Delisting sex-reassignment surgery in Ontario: A justified limit or a limited justification?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The decision in Hogan v. Ontario (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care)1 allows the Ontario government to continue to omit sex reassignment surgery (SRS) from the list of publicly funded health services in Ontario. This paper argues that justifiably delisting services necessitates a contextual approach to health and human dignity which considers the social construction of disability and gender, the historical basis of assumptions about medical care, and the expressive ability of the law. A refusal to publicly fund SRS in Ontario perpetuates the stigma associated with transsexualism through the maintenance and promotion of misconceptions and stereotypes; the expressive ability of the law ought to be considered when making delisting decisions. Moreover, the traditional judicial deferential stance to governmental decisions is unwarranted as it inadequately considers Charter2 and human rights. Procedural modifications are suggested, including a principled approach to delisting recommendations, written reasons for decisions, public consultation, and an effective review mechanism. 1[2006] O.H.R.T.D. No. 34 2 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c. 11, [Charter].
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".