MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Euthanasia Issues in the Practice of Family Doctors in the Netherlands

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

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFamily MedicineSame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207