MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3018273229 · doi:10.3390/rel11040213

Free to Die: A Lutheran-Relational Approach to Medical Assistance in Dying

2020· article· en· W3018273229 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kayko Driedger Hesslein

Bibliographic record

VenueReligions · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTheology and Philosophy of Evil
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPenal codeCulpabilityLawCriminal codePower (physics)Assisted suicideInterpretation (philosophy)BaptismRight to dieCriminal lawSociologyCriminologyPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2016, Canada legalized Bill C-14, which removed from the Criminal Code medical assistance in dying (MAID) under certain circumstances. In essence, the Bill legalized what is commonly described as euthanasia, under the provisions that the patient has a terminal medical diagnosis, anticipates extreme suffering, is at least 18 years old and still maintains their own medical power of attorney, has received the same diagnosis from two separate doctors, and requests such a procedure without duress. The bill exempts doctors and nurses from culpability in murder, along with those aiding the medical staff. The bill replaces sections of the Criminal Code that criminalize death by suicide. In this article, I first review the theological and historical interpretation of suicide within the Christian church. I then offer a specifically Lutheran feminist framework of our baptism into death, Luther’s explanation of the First Commandment, and Christian freedom to affirm Christians’ faithful decisions in seeking medical assistance in dying.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.931
Threshold uncertainty score0.810

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.186 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReligionsSame topicTheology and Philosophy of EvilFrench-language works237,207