A systematic literature review on the ethics of palliative sedation: an update (2016)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Palliative sedation has been the subject of intensive debate since its first appearance in 1990. In a 2010 review of palliative sedation, the following areas were identified as lacking in consensus: inconsistent terminology, its use in nonphysical suffering, the ongoing experience of distress, and concern that the practice of palliative sedation may hasten death. This review looks at the literature over the past 6 years and provides an update on these outstanding concerns. RECENT FINDINGS: Good clinical guidelines and policies are still required to address issues of emotional distress and waylay concerns that palliative sedation hastens death. SUMMARY: The empirical evidence suggests some movement toward consensus on the practice of palliative sedation. However, a continued need exists for evidence-informed practice guidelines, education, and research to support the ethical practice of palliative sedation at the end of life. Until that time, clinicians are advised to adopt a framework or guideline that has been expert driven to ensure consistent and ethical use of palliative sedation at the end of life.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".