A Call for a Patient-Centered Response to Legalized Assisted Dying
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Ideas and Opinions15 November 2016A Call for a Patient-Centered Response to Legalized Assisted DyingJohn Frye, MA and Stuart J. Youngner, MDJohn Frye, MAFrom the Department of Bioethics, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio. and Stuart J. Youngner, MDFrom the Department of Bioethics, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio.Author, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/M16-1319 SectionsAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail On 9 June 2016, California became the fifth state to legalize physician-assisted suicide (PAS), joining Oregon, Washington, Montana, and Vermont. More states may soon follow. Like it or not, PAS is here and is not going away. Given this reality, it is problematic that professional organizations have left physicians without sufficient support and guidance on how to provide the best possible care to dying patients seeking to exercise this legal right.The refusal of professional organizations—including the American College of Physicians, American Medical Association, and American Osteopathic Association—to provide clinical guidance on the care of patients actively seeking assistance in ...References1. Quill TE, Cassel CK. Professional organizations' position statements on physician-assisted suicide: a case for studied neutrality. Ann Intern Med. 2003;138:208-11. [PMID: 12558360] LinkGoogle Scholar2. Dobscha SK, Heintz RT, Press N, Ganzini L. Oregon physicians' responses to requests for assisted suicide: a qualitative study. J Palliat Med. 2004;7:451-61. [PMID: 15265355] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar3. Campbell CS, Cox JC. Hospice and physician-assisted death: collaboration, compliance, and complicity. Hastings Cent Rep. 2010;40:26-35. [PMID: 20964161] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar4. Hendin H, Rutenfrans C, Zylicz Z. Physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia in the Netherlands. Lessons from the Dutch. JAMA. 1997;277:1720-2. [PMID: 9169901] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar5. Canadian Medical Association. Principles-based recommendations for a Canadian approach to assisted dying. 2015. Accessed at www.cma.ca/Assets/assets-library/document/en/advocacy/cma-framework_assisted-dying_approved-by-board_oct2015.pdf on 11 August 2016. Google Scholar6. Canadian Medical Association. A Canadian approach to assisted dying: a CMA member dialogue summary report. 2015. Accessed at www.cma.ca/Assets/assets-library/document/en/advocacy/Canadian-Approach-Assisted-Dying-e.pdf on 11 August 2016. Google Scholar Author, Article, and Disclosure InformationAffiliations: From the Department of Bioethics, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio.Disclosures: Authors have disclosed no conflicts of interest. Forms can be viewed at www.acponline.org/authors/icmje/ConflictOfInterestForms.do?msNum=M16-1319.Corresponding Author: Stuart J. Youngner, MD, Department of Bioethics, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, 10900 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44106-4976; e-mail, [email protected]edu.Current Author Addresses: Mr. Frye: Department of Bioethics, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, TA 200, 10900 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44106-4976.Dr. Youngner: Department of Bioethics, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, 10900 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44106-4976.Author Contributions: Conception and design: J. Frye, S.J. Youngner.Drafting of the article: J. Frye, S.J. Youngner.Critical revision of the article for important intellectual content: J. Frye, S.J. Youngner.Final approval of the article: J. Frye, S.J. Youngner.Administrative, technical, or logistic support: S.J. Youngner.This article was published at www.annals.org on 27 September 2016. PreviousarticleNextarticle Advertisement FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsSee AlsoThe Annals of Medical Assistance in Dying Catherine Frazee and Harvey Max Chochinov Metrics Cited byAGS Survey Actually Supports Engaged Neutrality for Physician‐Assisted DeathPoverty: Not a Justification for Banning Physician-Assisted DeathPhysician-Assisted Suicide: Why Neutrality by Organized Medicine Is Neither Neutral Nor AppropriateThe pharmacist and medical aid in dying 15 November 2016Volume 165, Issue 10Page: 733-734KeywordsBioethicsPalliative carePatient advocacyPatientsPeriodic acid SchiffPharmacistsPopulation statisticsPrevention, policy, and public healthSuicideTraditional medicine ePublished: 27 September 2016 Issue Published: 15 November 2016 Copyright & PermissionsCopyright © 2016 by American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.PDF downloadLoading ...
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,067 | 0,132 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,016 | 0,017 |
| Communication savante | 0,020 | 0,022 |
| Science ouverte | 0,006 | 0,028 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,070 | 0,106 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,042 | 0,019 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».