Whose life is it anyway? An exploration of five contemporary ethical issues that pertain to the psychiatric nursing care of the person who is suicidal: Part one
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is self-evident that ethical issues are important topics for consideration for those involved in the care of the person who is suicidal. Nevertheless, despite the obvious relationship between Mental Health nurses and care of the person who is suicidal, such nurses have hitherto been mostly silent on these matters. As a result, this two-part paper focuses on a number of contemporary issues which might help inform the ethical discourse and resultant Mental Health nursing care of the person who is suicidal. Part one of this paper focuses on the issues: Whose life is it anyway? Harming of our bodies and the inconsistency in ethical responses and, Is suicide ever a reasonable thing to do? The authors find that this contemporary view within the suicidology academe and the corresponding legal position in most western (developed) countries is that the individual owns his/her own body. Yet given that contemporary mental healthcare policy and associated practice positions do not reflect view, this can easily lead to the scenario where a Mental Health nurse is faced with a major ethical dilemma, and the corresponding probability of moral distress. The authors also find that it is inaccurate to posit a simple positive correlation between the potential seriousness and/or extent of bodily harm and the degree of paternalistic removal of an individual's rights to personal body ownership. Lastly, the authors find that the relevant theoretical and ethical literature in this area suggests, at least for some and under certain conditions, suicide can be the right thing to do.
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 | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| 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".