Physician-assisted death: attitudes and practices of community pharmacists in East Flanders, Belgium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates attitudes and practices of community pharmacists with respect to physician-assisted death. Between 15 February and 15 April 2002, we sent anonymous mail questionnaires to 660 community pharmacists in the eastern province of Flanders, Belgium. The response rate was 54% (n = 359). Most of the pharmacists who responded felt that patients have the right to end their own life (73%), and that under certain conditions physicians may assist the patient in dying (euthanasia: 84%; physician-assisted suicide: 61%). Under the prevailing restrictive legislation, a quarter of the pharmacists were willing to dispense lethal drugs for euthanasia versus 86% if it were legalized, but only after being well informed by the physician. The respondents-favour guidelines for pharmacists drafted by their own professional organizations (95%), and enforced by legislation (90%) to ensure careful end-of-life practice. Over the last two years, 7.3% of the responding pharmacists have received a medical prescription for lethal drugs and 6.4% have actually dispensed them. So we can conclude that community pharmacists in East Flanders were not adverse to physician-assisted death, but their cooperation in dispensing lethal drugs was conditional on clinical information about the specific case and on protection by laws and professional guidelines.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".