MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2759657269 · doi:10.1177/0969733017730684

Nurse leaders’ role in medical assistance in dying: A relational ethics approach

2017· article· en· W2759657269 on OpenAlexaffabout
Tracy Thiele, Jennifer Dunsford

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing Ethics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEthics in medical practice
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaWinnipeg Regional Health Authority
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNursingDutyHealth careNursing ethicsEthical codePsychologyNursing careMedicinePublic relationsPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent changes to the Criminal Code of Canada have resulted in the right of competent adult Canadians to request medical assistance in dying (MAID). Healthcare professionals now can participate if the individual meets specific outlined criteria. There remains confusion and lack of knowledge about the specific role of nurses in MAID. MAID is a controversial topic and nurses may be faced with the challenge of balancing the duty to provide routine care, with moral reservations about MAID. The role of a nursing leader is to support nurses by ensuring they have the knowledge they require to care for patients requesting the service, whether or not the nurse is directly involved in the MAID process. The moral dilemmas raised by MAID provide an opportunity to look at a relational ethics approach to nursing leadership both for MAID and other difficult situations that arise in nursing practice. Relational ethics is a framework that proposes that the ethical moments in healthcare are based on relationships and fostering growth, healing, and health through the foundational concepts of mutual respect, engagement, embodiment, and environment. This article will use a relational ethics framework to examine how nursing leadership can support nurses who care for patients requesting MAID.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.048
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.204
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Research integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.952
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0480.204
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0060.077
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.489
GPT teacher head0.596
Teacher spread0.107 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNursing EthicsSame topicEthics in medical practiceFrench-language works237,207