Physician-hastened death in young children: Getting to underlying assumptions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Significant changes are occurring in Canada's health care system regarding physician-hastened death (PHD). In the Netherlands, where the Groningen Protocol is in place, euthanasia in now legal for infants and children. The present article considers whether PHD should be applied to young children in Canada and how these paediatric cases differ from adult cases. The discussion analyzes and critiques the underlying assumptions necessary to believe that PHD is good. The role of worldviews in the deliberation of any moral question and the importance of recognizing personal bias are highlighted. The authors present common issues regarding PHD, including suffering, parental autonomy and future quality of life, and examine the basic assumptions on which these arguments are made. Finally, they conclude that the assumptions required are incorrect and that PHD should not be allowed in the case of children. Instead, policies should continue to strive for the protection and promotion of health in all children.
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 | 0.032 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.061 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.022 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".