MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Euthanasia Issues in the Practice of Family Doctors in the Netherlands

2019· article· en· W2998502140 on OpenAlex
В. І. Ткаченко, Людмила Березовська

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueFamily Medicine · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegalizationAnguishMedicineAssisted suicidePsychiatryDementiaFamily doctorsFamily medicineDiseaseNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Euthanasia is the deliberate cessation of life by another person in order to get rid of the physical and mental anguish associated with his incurable disease. As for 2019, active human euthanasia has been legal in theNetherlands,Belgium,Colombia,Luxembourg,Canada, etc. since 2002.The objective: is to identify the features and legal aspects of euthanasia in the practice of a family doctor in theNetherlands, a country that has become a pioneer in the implementation of the law on legalization of euthanasia.Materials and methods. We collected material through interviews during our participation in the experience exchange program organized by the Netherlands National Organization of General Practitioners (LOVAH), we analyzed reports and systematically analyzed literature data on this issue.Results. Since 2002, theNetherlands has legalized 2 types of euthanasia – directly euthanasia and suicide, which is assisted. In average 6,6% of all deaths are with the help of euthanasia in theNetherlands. The most common reasons for patients requesting euthanasia in 2018 were oncological diseases (4013 cases – 66%), comorbid conditions (738 – 12%), diseases of the nervous system (382 – 6%), and cardiovascular (231 – 3,8%), respiratory system (189 – 3%), deep senile age (205 – 3,3%), initial stages of dementia (144 – 2,4%), mental disorders (67 – 1%) and others. In 85% of cases of euthanasia, it was carried out by general practitioners–family doctors. General practitioner–family doctor is the first person whom patients asking for such help. The euthanasia procedure is carried out by a doctor according to certain strict rules. More often, patients show a desire to end their life at home (80%), less often in hospices (8%), nursing homes of various types (8%) or hospitals (3%).Comclusion. Euthanasia is legalized in many countries of the world and in 85% of cases euthanasia is performed by general practitioners–family doctors, who are also the first contact person on this issue. The euthanasia procedure is permitted and carried out by a doctor according to certain strict rules and requires great responsibility and moral preparedness.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.294
Threshold uncertainty score0.477

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.177
GPT teacher head0.468
Teacher spread0.291 · 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