Advance Care Directives and the Position in Ireland: What lessons can Ireland learn from the United Kingdom, the United States and Europe?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An Advance care directive entitles a person to request in advance either the refusal of or consent to certain medical treatment if that person is not competent to consent or refuse at the time such refusal or consent is required. The 2003 Law Reform Commission’s Consultation Paper on Law and the Elderly briefly mentioned advance directives. However, the Paper decided to leave the issue to a future Paper that would give a more comprehensive analysis. There is no Irish legislation on the matter and consequently the legal position is unclear. The English Mental Capacity Act 2005 has given recognition to advance directives under section 24. It is interesting to note that only refusal is covered by the Act. The 2005 Law Reform Commission Consultation Paper on Vulnerable Adults discusses the issue of advance directives in more detail. This Paper will examine the Irish position of advance directives. The British Mental Capacity Act and recent case law will provide a comparative analysis. The UN Convention on the Protection of the Rights and Dignity of Persons with Disabilities will also be examined.
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 | 0.021 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.042 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.023 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".