Grief After Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Background: Several countries have regulated euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide (PAS). Research has looked at the experiences of patients, family, and professionals. However, little is known of the effects on bereaved individuals. Aims: We aimed to assess (a) what is known about the grief and mental health of people bereaved by euthanasia or PAS and (b) the quality of the research. Method: Systematic review according to PRISMA guidelines with searches in Cinahl, Embase, PsycINFO, Pubmed, and Scopus. Results: The searches identified 10 articles (eight studies), and the study quality was fair. People bereaved by euthanasia/PAS generally had similar or lower scores on measures of disordered grief, mental health, and posttraumatic stress compared with those who died naturally. Lack of social support and secrecy may compound their grief. Being involved in the decision-making process and having the feeling of honoring the deceased's will may facilitate their grief. Limitations: Studies used self-reports from non-random self-selected participants, were retrospective, and were conducted in only three countries. Conclusion: There is little evidence of increased risk of adverse grief or mental health outcomes in people bereaved by euthanasia/PAS. As more countries legalize assisted dying, high-quality studies of the factors that may hinder or facilitate the grief process are needed.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
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 it