MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Dignity Reevaluated: A Theological Examination of Human Dignity and the Role of the Church in Bioethics and End-of-Life Care

2015· article· en· W1841304056 on OpenAlexaff
Quentin I. T. Genuis

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Linacre Quarterly · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPatient Dignity and Privacy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDignityBioethicsAutonomyMeaning (existential)Environmental ethicsConfusionSociologyEpistemologyLawPhilosophyPsychologyPolitical sciencePsychoanalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Predominant among the terminological ambiguities that plague contemporary bioethics is confusion attending the meaning of the term “human dignity,” particularly as it applies to so-called end-of-life discussions. This study surveys current trends in treatment of the concept of dignity, examining relevant thinkers who see dignity as redundant or as capability-dependent. These inadequate views are contrasted with an attitude, based theologically in Mark 5, that understands human dignity to represent an absolute characteristic that is donated graciously to all bearers of imago Dei. Human dignity must thus be affirmed as inviolable and independent of autonomy, rationality, or capability. A specific task of the Christian Church is to faithfully recognize and proclaim this dignity. This investigation is particularly relevant in the face of contemporary discussions regarding euthanasia and physician-assisted death. Lay Summary: Much of the polarization within the contemporary bioethical discussion proceeds out of confusion regarding how we ought to define the terms of the debate. If we may take the existing debates regarding euthanasia and physician-assisted death as an example, we may understand the vital need for a sensible definition of the term that stands at the heart of the arguments of both sides of the debate: “human dignity.” As such, this study seeks to define dignity in a logical, theological, deeply personal, and highly practical fashion, and to outline the critical role of the Church within such an understanding. Sometimes, when I walk into the room, he ignores me. Sometimes he thinks I am someone else. Most often he is asleep, subjugated by drugs designed to prevent agitation, although “agitation” is the sterilized hospital word for what I would call unbridled panic, total disorientation. The night he had the stroke, they had to tie him to the bed just to keep him in the hospital. And they wouldn't let me see him because he had been calling my name. Very dramatic, but most of his suffering, and our grief, is not dramatic. It is just the mundane process of one man slowly fading, becoming, every day, more of a stranger to himself and to those he loves.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.655
Threshold uncertainty score0.726

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.097
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.246 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Linacre QuarterlySame topicPatient Dignity and PrivacyFrench-language works237,207