Granting death with dignity: patient, family and professional prespectives
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
Dignity is a complex construct lacking clear meaning. While conceptualizing dignity as a basic right is useful in determining and justifying social and economic costs of health care, it is insufficient in considerations of personal dignity at the end of life. There is a dissonance between how dignity is shown to matter to healthcare professionals compared to patients. Furthermore, dignity is not clearly linked in the empirical literature to variables of quality of life and to a dignified death. Current studies about the construct of dignity enhance understanding of how we extrinsically construct moral worth, but not of how individuals interpret intrinsic moral worth through maintaining their personal integrity and attitudes of being cared for. References to key qualitative studies illuminate how clinicians ethically negotiate a creation of dying with dignity. As one's personal integrity fades, caregivers (i.e. healthcare providers, family and friends) are challenged to recognise and attend to the individual's vulnerability. I suggest that caregivers nurture personal integrity - through gestures that remember and honour aspects of the other as he/she was once known. Perhaps only through others can dying people be granted death with a sense of personal dignity.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 it