NON-PHYSICIAN ASSISTED SUICIDE: THE TECHNOLOGICAL IMPERATIVE OF THE DEATHING COUNTERCULTURE
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article reports on the 2nd Self-Deliverance New Technology Conference (NuTech), held in November 1999, in Seattle, Washington. Right-to-die activists from six countries met to demonstrate a number of devices for non-medical assisted death and to share preliminary findings on their use. The author attended all sessions of the private conference and received confidential memoranda and papers. An overt observer-as-participant method was used. Five devices for non-medical assisted death were demonstrated. These included three systems for breathing inert gas, a customized plastic bag for asphyxiation called the Exit Bag, and a closed circuit breathing system called the Debreather. Seven deaths out of eight trials were reported for the Debreather and four deaths were reported using the Exit Bag. Additionally, a non-quantified number of deaths using inert gas delivery systems were described by various conference delegates. The systems demonstrated by the NuTech group are designed to induce death quickly and painlessly. In general, they leave negligible, if any, post-mortem evidence of their use. The compulsion to use technology to cause death, the "technological imperative," has emerged as part of underground care of dying persons. This imperative raises serious challenges to the health care professions, legislators, and policy makers, particularly because it has led to a sophisticated, expanding movement of non-medical death providers.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it