Suicide, assisted suicide and euthanasia: International perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Suicide, assisted suicide and euthanasia are elusive and controversial issues worldwide. To discuss such issues from only one perspective may be limiting. Therefore, this paper was written by authors from various regions, each of whom has been asked to reflect on the issues. The countries/cultures are: Australia, China, Cuba, Ireland, India, Japan, Russia, South Africa, The Netherlands, North America (Turtle Island) and United States. Historically and today, suicide is viewed differently. Assisted suicide and euthanasia are equally seen from multifarious perspectives. Highlighting development in the Netherlands, Australia's Northern Territory and Japan (ie. the famous Yamanouchi Case), the review shows growing re-examination of the right to die. There appear, however, to be no uniform legal and ethical positions. Further debate and discussion globally is needed to avoid myopic perspectives.
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 | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".