Physician-assisted death
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To survey amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) health care providers to determine attitudes regarding physician-assisted death (PAD) after the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) invalidated the Criminal Code provisions that prohibit PAD in February 2015. METHODS: We conducted a Canada-wide survey of physicians and allied health professionals (AHP) involved in the care of patients with ALS on their opinions regarding (1) the SCC ruling, (2) their willingness to participate in PAD, and (3) the PAD implementation process for patients with ALS. RESULTS: We received 231 responses from ALS health care providers representing all 15 academic ALS centers in Canada, with an overall response rate for invited participants of 74%. The majority of physicians and AHP agreed with the SCC ruling and believed that patients with moderate and severe stage ALS should have access to PAD; however, most physicians would not provide a lethal prescription or injection to an eligible patient. They preferred the patient obtain a second opinion to confirm eligibility, have a psychiatric assessment, and then be referred to a third party to administer PAD. The majority of respondents felt unprepared for the initiation of this program and favored the development of PAD training modules and guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: ALS health care providers support the SCC decision and the majority believe PAD should be available to patients with moderate to severe ALS with physical or emotional suffering. However, few clinicians are willing to directly provide PAD and additional training and guidelines are required before implementation in Canada.
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 | 0.002 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".