Historical Approaches to Euthanasia: The Unfinished Story of a Concept
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Various ethics committees in Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Luxembourg, Portugal, and France have made attempts to describe the notion of euthanasia. Opinion No 063 (January 27, 2000) of the National Advisory Committee on Ethics shows that there has been no concensus on the definition of this concept. It is therefore necessary to review historical background of euthanasia from ancient times to modern period to better understand its potential applications in divergent contexts. Studies devoted to euthanasia usually involve two modalities, namely active and passive. The active modality entails the act of deliberately killing a patient with or against their will in order to relieve persistent suffering, while the passive modality deals with the rational valid refusal of life-sustaining medical interventions necessary for the patient's life and health. The goal of this article is to present different historical approaches to euthanasia from two modalities and engage the bioethics community in a discussion on legal, social, and ethical issues of euthanasia all over the world.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".