THE RIGHT TO “GOOD DEATH” – A NEW RIGHT ALONGSIDE THE RIGHT TO LIFE?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
“Neither will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a course.” – The Hippocratic Oath We are far from the moment when our country recognizes a right to death as the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, the USA (Oregon State), Canada, Finland, Argentina or Australia did, either in the form of active euthanasia or passive euthanasia. However, medically assisted euthanasia and suicide are subjects as sensitive as real and generating many pro and con debates, involving areas such as law, religion, medicine or bioethics. Given that Europe has abolished the death penalty, as many European documents recognize the right of every person to life, there is a growing debate about the recognition of the right to die with dignity. There are many questions to ask: Should the freedom of each person to decide for himself be considered in this context? Are we playing with fate? As long as there are incurable diseases, diseases that take man's dignity, diseases that cause unbearable pain, euthanasia will remain a topical subject.
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 | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.004 |
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".