An International Consensus Definition of the Wish to Hasten Death and Its Related Factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The desire for hastened death or wish to hasten death (WTHD) that is experienced by some patients with advanced illness is a complex phenomenon for which no widely accepted definition exists. This lack of a common conceptualization hinders understanding and cooperation between clinicians and researchers. The aim of this study was to develop an internationally agreed definition of the WTHD. METHODS: Following an exhaustive literature review, a modified nominal group process and an international, modified Delphi process were carried out. The nominal group served to produce a preliminary definition that was then subjected to a Delphi process in which 24 experts from 19 institutions from Europe, Canada and the USA participated. Delphi responses and comments were analysed using a pre-established strategy. FINDINGS: All 24 experts completed the three rounds of the Delphi process, and all the proposed statements achieved at least 79% agreement. Key concepts in the final definition include the WTHD as a reaction to suffering, the fact that such a wish is not always expressed spontaneously, and the need to distinguish the WTHD from the acceptance of impending death or from a wish to die naturally, although preferably soon. The proposed definition also makes reference to possible factors related to the WTHD. CONCLUSIONS: This international consensus definition of the WTHD should make it easier for clinicians and researchers to share their knowledge. This would foster an improved understanding of the phenomenon and help in developing strategies for early therapeutic intervention.
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 | 0.131 | 0.140 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".