A conceptual framework for thinking about physician-assisted death for persons with a mental disorder.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physician-assisted death (PAD) has been enacted in a number of international jurisdictions, with several extending access to PAD for persons whose condition is not terminal, including those with a mental disorder.  We argue that based on the state of the literature, it is too early to make well-defined recommendations on how relevant fields can proceed legally, ethically, and clinically, particularly in regard to PAD for persons with a mental disorder.  The aim of this paper is to introduce a framework for further discussions on PAD for persons with a mental disorder to stimulate thoughtful and considered debate in our field.  We provide a brief discussion of the principles that guide regulatory frameworks on PAD practices worldwide, including a discussion of jurisdictions in Europe and North America that allow PAD for those suffering from an incurable non-terminal disease, illness, or disability.  Next, we present a conceptual framework as a series of questions that address legal, ethical, and clinical dilemmas arising from this trend.  We conclude with a summary of guidelines on the practice of PAD from international jurisdictions in order to assist in the development of potential legal and professional regulations.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".