MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1990923224 · doi:10.1177/002200940103600103

‘A Prey on Normal People’: C. Killick Millard and the Euthanasia Movement in Great Britain, 1930–55

2001· article· en· W1990923224 on OpenAlexaff
Ian Dowbiggin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Contemporary History · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies on Reproduction, Gender, Health, and Societal Changes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Prince Edward Island
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSympathyEugenicsLegalizationNazismLawNazi GermanyState (computer science)Political scienceLegislationMoresSociologyHistoryPoliticsMedicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Few issues in medicine and society today are more controversial than euthanasia, the term derived from the Greek word for ‘easy death’ and often called ‘mercy-killing’. Current debates raise questions about the past and what euthanasia has meant to earlier generations. The most infamous example of a state euthanasia programme occurred between 1939 and 1945 in nazi Germany when thousands of handicapped men, women and children were murdered. But little is known about the history of Anglo-American euthanasia. This article, based on an examination of documents from a variety of archival collections in England and the USA, explores the early history of the unsuccessful movement to legalize euthanasia in Great Britain, as embodied in the Voluntary Euthanasia Legislation Society (VELS). By focusing on the career of C. Killick Millard (1870–1952), the founder of the VELS, this article argues that although the VELS tried to convince the public that it sought the legalization of only mercy-killing with consent, there was a tendency within the VELS to obscure the distinctions between voluntary and involuntary euthanasia. There is even some evidence of VELS sympathy for nazi euthanasia. At the same time, VELS members also tended to be involved in the eugenics, birth control and public health movements or belong to liberal religious groups like the Unitarians, or they were physicians radicalized by the experience of watching patients die in protracted agony. It is this complex constellation of motives — some murky and some indisputably humane — that warrants attention nowadays, at a time when courts and legislatures are being asked to rule on such literally life and death issues.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.237
Threshold uncertainty score0.471

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0160.022
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0070.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.076
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.171 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations5
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Contemporary HistorySame topicHistorical Studies on Reproduction, Gender, Health, and Societal ChangesFrench-language works237,207