“In pain waiting to die”: Everyday understandings of suffering
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The notion of "suffering" is understood in very different ways in a variety of contexts. In palliative care, the relief and prevention of suffering is considered to be a fundamental goal (Pastrana et al., 2008). However, the avoidance of suffering has also been used as an argument by those campaigning for the legalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide (Finlay, 2009). In reflecting upon suffering in these two contexts, we were intrigued by Finlay's (2009) contention that to laypeople, the phrase "'unbearable suffering' conjures up images of patients on their deathbeds wracked with uncontrolled pain" (p. 1841). METHOD: This article explores how suffering is used and understood in an "everyday" discourse, by analyzing comments posted to a website debating assisted suicide in the context of the Canadian case of Sue Rodriguez. RESULTS: Using a broad social approach to discourse analysis (Tonkiss, 2004), three themes emerged in our analysis: (1) when people suffer, (2) how people are understood to suffer, and (3) how suffering should be dealt with. We also examined what was not said in this discussion: there was little consideration of the more holistic goals of palliative care and how suffering might be understood and managed in ways other than within the frame of assisted suicide. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: Paying attention to the everyday discourse of suffering is important because, as members of society, we all play a role in negotiating the meaning of suffering. Such meaning has a significant impact upon patients and palliative care professionals alike.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".