Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide: Comparison of legal aspects in Switzerland and other countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to present the legal aspects associated with assisted suicide in Switzerland and compare them with those in other countries. Like euthanasia, assisted suicide is a subject that induces much discussion in many countries. While the law is very liberal in some countries, such as Belgium and the Netherlands (where both euthanasia and assisted suicide take place), these practices are very controversial in other countries, such as France, where they remain taboo subjects. In the United States of America, the laws concerning assisted suicide can differ greatly from one state to another. For example, in Oregon, assisted suicide is allowed if applied by a medical doctor; in others, this act is illegal. In Canada, it is punishable according to the Criminal Code. In Switzerland euthanasia is punishable by law. However, the penal code does not condemn assisted suicide, whether carried out by a medical doctor or another person, provided it is not carried out through selfish motives. The application of these practices has become simplified in recent years and societies for the right to die with dignity based on this principle have come into being (Exit and Dignitas). In the French- and German-speaking parts of Switzerland the association Exit assists individuals living in Switzerland with serious progressive and incurable disease in their engagement to end their life. The association Dignitas, in the German-speaking part of Switzerland, also undertakes--in the same circumstances--to assist individuals coming from foreign countries. Dignitas welcomes several such individuals every year, especially from Germany, where a similar approach does not currently exist.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".