Finnish nurses’ attitudes towards their role in the euthanasia process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Nurses' voices remain unheard in most debates about euthanasia, although their crucial role in the euthanasia process is widely acknowledged. Moreover, in Canadian euthanasia law, nurses have a more active role, which further highlights the need for knowledge about nurses' attitudes towards their role in the euthanasia process. RESEARCH QUESTIONS: What are Finnish nurses' attitudes towards their potential role in the euthanasia process? Which characteristics are associated with those attitudes? RESEARCH DESIGN: Cross-sectional web-based survey. PARTICIPANTS AND RESEARCH CONTEXT: 1003 nurses, recruited via social media and the members' bulletin of the Finnish Nurses Association. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS: Ethical approval was obtained from the Committee on Research Ethics of the university to which the first author was affiliated. FINDINGS: The great majority (85.2%) of nurses felt that their perspective should be considered in decision-making related to euthanasia. Furthermore, most of the participants (74.7%) reported willingness to participate in the euthanasia process if it were legal, and 88.6% agreed that a nurse should be present when euthanasia is performed if the patient wishes so. Furthermore, over half agreed that some of the preparatory tasks were part of their job description. However, a minority (32.9%) agreed with a possible obligation to participate based on their profession. Nurses' age, religiosity and educational level influenced their attitudes in the current results. DISCUSSION: Despite the strong agreement on decision-making concerning euthanasia and participation in the euthanasia process, obligation to participate based on the profession was rejected by most participants. Nurses regarded themselves as consultants in the decision-making process, which may indicate their unwillingness to share the responsibility for the decision itself. CONCLUSION: Specific safety mechanisms should be considered to protect nurses who refuse to be involved in the euthanasia process due to harm that involuntary participation might cause.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".