Washington State Social Workers' Attitudes Toward Voluntary Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines attitudes and experiences concerning voluntary euthanasia (VE) and assisted suicide (AS) among 862 professional social workers from Washington State, USA. Although AS has been portrayed as more acceptable than VE, social workers make only a minor distinction in their support for the legalization of such acts (VE 72.4%; AS 77.6%). Only 26.6% agreed with the US Supreme Court's ruling that assisted suicide is not a constitutional right. More than 75% believe that social workers should be involved in the decision-making process with clients who are considering VE/AS. About 20% of social workers report being consulted about VE/AS issues either by clients or in their personal lives. Social workers employed in medical settings are more than twice as likely to be consulted about VE/AS than those employed in non-medical settings. Religious commitment explains some opposition to VE/AS for Protestants and Catholics, but not for other faiths. A small number of social workers (19) admitted to assisting the death of a patient by VE and 5 admitted to AS.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".