Live or let die : perceptions of Canadian psychologists on assisted death
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis investigated, through an online survey, (a) the opinions of Canadian registered psychologists on the practice of assisted death, (b) the demographic factors that predict these responses, (c) the knowledge that Canadian psychologists have surrounding assisted death, and (d) the confidence this population has in their abilities and training for assessing competency in those who request assisted death. This research topic is of significant value given that there has been no published data on this topic specific to this target population. In total, 97 participants were recruited from the Canadian Psychological Association Research Portal, Facebook advertising, and provincial and territorial psychological associations. Descriptive and nonparametric statistics were used. The data demonstrated that studied psychologists support physician-assisted death for terminal, but not mental, illness. This support was related to the presence of several demographic variables including religion, professional specialty, and number of years as a registered psychologist. Studied psychologists had limited confidence in their ability to assess the competency of terminally ill individuals. As a result, participants expressed an interest in professional training. Psychologists, in this thesis research, appeared to have limited knowledge regarding the practices that constitute assisted death. This was demonstrated to be inconsistent with the results found in the literature. Implications for this study include a new perspective being added to the debate on assisted death as well recognition that psychologists may have an important role to play in the legalization and regulation of these controversial practices. Future directions for research, policy, and professional development are provided.
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 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".