Comparative Study of Physician-Assisted Suicide Status in the Laws of Different Countries and Iran Legal System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Aim: Euthanasia is one of the most important and challenging topics in the field of biomedical ethics. This study was conducted to compare the situation of physician-assisted in the laws of different countries and to explain its position in the Iran legal system. Materials and Methods: In this comparative study, after purposeful search and review of related studies, the issue of physician-assisted in the laws of 12 different countries was compared and then, the need to criminalize it in the legal system based on ethical and Islamic principles was discussed. Findings: Countries' position towards criminalization or decriminalization of physician-assisted is different. It has been criminalized in England and Wales, Germany and Canada, absolutely, and in countries such as Sweden, the Netherlands, Belgium and the state of Victoria, Australia, conditionally. Although most of the United States has criminalized it, the states of Colorado, Oregon, Washington, Vermont, Montana, and California, along with Switzerland, Colombia, Luxembourg and India, have taken steps to legalize it. Despite the religious sanctity of suicide and its immorality in Islamic teachings, it has not been explicitly criminalized in the Iran legal system. Conclusion: Given the relative silence of the legislature about suicide, the legal gap of physician-assisted is observed. Thus, based on moral and Islamic teachings and other criteria of criminology in religious communities, it is appropriate to consider the criminalization of this issue and its conditions in the Iran legal system. Please cite this article as: Beigi J. Comparative Study of Physician-Assisted Suicide Status in the Laws of Different Countries and Iran Legal System. Bioethics Journal 2019; 9(34): 67-80.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".