MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2030250926 · doi:10.1080/07481180126092

NON-PHYSICIAN ASSISTED SUICIDE: THE TECHNOLOGICAL IMPERATIVE OF THE DEATHING COUNTERCULTURE

2001· article· en· W2030250926 on OpenAlexaff
Rüssel D. Ogden

Bibliographic record

VenueDeath Studies · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsTelus (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCountercultureConfidentialityAssisted suicideHealth technologyMedicineHealth careMedical emergencyInternet privacyComputer securityPolitical sciencePsychiatryComputer scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.016
Scholarly communication0.0090.008
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.209
GPT teacher head0.450
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Citations22
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDeath StudiesSame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207