Pastoral guidance and sacramental practice for patients who choose assisted suicide/euthanasia: Suicide relativism and the canadian dilemma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since 2016, assisted suicide and euthanasia have been legally permitted in Canada and referred to, contentiously, as «Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID)». This paper outlines how suicide relativism has created uncertainty that has affected physicians and healthcare professionals, including healthcare administrators, as they endeavour to discharge their duties. This is done, in part, by addressing how patients who are considering or opting for assisted suicide or euthanasia themselves are affected by suicide relativism as they seek spiritual care, particularly when Catholics might seek confession, extreme unction, a Catholic funeral and rite of burial, critical elements of Catholic pastoral care. Although the Catholic bishops of Canada are united in their view that assisted suicide and euthanasia, objectively, is a moral evil, they are divided on the pastoral response to Catholics who both request assisted suicide or euthanasia and spiritual care at their chosen end of life. This moral ambiguity results in unclarity regarding the moral status of assisted suicide and euthanasia and serves to advance suicide relativism among some Catholic lay people, patients, healthcare professionals and administrators.
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 | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.030 | 0.046 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".