Attitudes of Quebec doctors toward sedation at the end of life: An exploratory study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The induction of sedation at the end of life is a much debated practice and not very documented. The goal of this study was to explore the practice from both a clinical and ethical point of view. METHODS: Data were collected through semistructured interviews with 19 Quebec physicians working in palliative care. RESULTS: Doctors' first priority was their patients, not patients' families. Clinically, the therapeutic aim of sedation was strictly to relieve suffering on the part of the patient. Ethically, getting the patient's consent was imperative. The family's consent was only required in cases of incapacity. Generally, sedation and euthanasia were seen as two distinct practices. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE RESEARCH: There are still very few guidelines regarding end-of-life sedation in Québec, and its normative framework is more implicit than explicit. It should be noted that most of the respondents regarded sedation and euthanasia as two distinct practices.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".