The public’s viewpoint on the right to hastened death in Alberta, Canada: findings from a population survey study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A research study was conducted to determine public opinion in Alberta, a Canadian province, on the controversial topic of death hastening. Questions on the right to hastened death, end-of-life plans and end-of-life experiences were included in the Population Research Laboratory's annual 2010 health-care telephone survey, with 1203 adults providing results relatively representative of Albertans. Of all 1203, 72.6% said yes to the question: 'Should dying adults be able to request and get help from others to end their life early, in other words, this is a request for assisted suicide'? Among all who provided an answer, 36.8% indicated 'yes, every competent adult should have this right' and 40.6% indicated 'yes, but it should be allowed only in certain cases or situations'. Over 50% of respondents in all but one socio-demographic population sub-group (Religious-other) were supportive of the right to hastened death. However, multinomial regression analysis revealed that the experiences of deciding to euthanise a pet/animal and developing or planning to develop an advance directive predicted support, while self-reported religiosity predicted non-support. Finding majority public support for death hastening suggests that legalisation could potentially occur in the future; but with this policy first requiring a careful consideration of the model of assisted suicide or euthanasia that best protects people who are highly vulnerable to despair and suffering near the end of life.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".