Euthanasia: A Controversial Entity Among Students of Karachi
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background A serene death may be achieved through skilled and compassionate care, as well as by the dying person's own sense of having lived a righteous life. The purpose of this study is to acquire information about students' knowledge and understanding of euthanasia. Materials and Methods Four hundred and fifty-six students from four classes of two institutions with similar demographic characteristics were included in this cross-sectional study. A questionnaire adapted from a study of 'Gruber, et al.' was distributed among the respondents after obtaining a verbal informed consent. The questionnaire had two parts, first dealing with demographics of respondents, and in the second part students were given different situations and asked about their decision in that particular setting to understand their opinion about euthanasia. Results There were 31.7% medical students and 12.9% non-medical students in favor to provide complete medical information (p < 0.001) while 59.2% non-medical students thought that complete information should be given to a patient if any iatrogenic incident occurred. Same favored by 33.7% of medical students (p < 0.001). The majority of medical students (84.5%) felt that cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) must always be provided (p < 0.001) and this was acceptable more among females (p = 0.001). Furthermore, medical students (57.6%) were more in favor of continuing maximum medical treatment including CPR than non-medical students (42.9%, p = 0.003). A total of 83% non-medical students and 46% medical students found euthanasia an acceptable practice. Conclusion Results show a significant difference in perception of medical and non-medical students regarding euthanasia. Non-medical students are more in favor of euthanasia than medical students. Also, it is observed that males seem to be more inclined towards euthanasia while females are more in favor to provide maximum medical treatment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".