MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3168753045 · doi:10.1080/07481187.2021.1926636

Ethical judgment in assessing requests for medical assistance in dying in Canada and Quebec: What can we learn from other jurisdictions?

2021· review· en· W3168753045 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Mona Gupta, Samuel Blouin

Bibliographic record

VenueDeath Studies · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsClinical judgmentVirtuePsychologyEthical issuesPublic relationsLawPolitical scienceEngineering ethicsMedicineEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper concerns the ethical judgment that lies at the heart of assessing requests for Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) in Canada and Quebec, namely is it ethically right to help the person requesting assistance to end his or her life? We address situations in which making this judgment may be challenging despite the person fulfilling legal eligibility requirements. Using three clinical cases that are challenging by virtue of the legal requirement that a person experience intolerable suffering we explore this issue. We review practice guidance provided to providers and assessors in six jurisdictions and discuss potential resources to inform the ethical judgments involved in MAID assessments.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.893
Threshold uncertainty score0.937

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.260
GPT teacher head0.494
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations7
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDeath StudiesSame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207